Catalytic Philanthropy - what a fantastic social innovation! This article should be circulated to all philanthropic organisations to tackle social problems at its roots rather than treating the symptoms. It is also a great lesson for government agencies dealing with social issues as well. One crucial issue in Australia and probably in many parts of the developed world is obesity. Using the catalytic approach I think will be far more cost effective and bring about the desired results rather than the traditional approaches.
There is nothing this author is saying that isn’t currently being done. 501c4s lobby - many 501c3s “educate.” Some nonprofits do pay for expensive advertising campaigns. Some nonprofits do engage the targeted cohorts in an effort to address a problem. Most nonprofit do practice some form of self evaluation - most foundations require some measures to show results, impacts, and accountability. And, yes, most nonprofits and many foundations do actually collaborate and talk to each other within and across fields and within a service area. Most seek out best practices and there are libraries full of materials - take a trip to a school of Social Work and talk to somebody. Sure, most non-profits would be happy to have additional capital to engage in additional activities, have more competitive salaries, etc. - thank you, when can we expect the check. The only thing novel the author seems to be suggesting - other than snappy lingo - is that in addition to the the plethora of non-profits we need thousands of rich people running around thinking they are experts, throwing their money at problems. Will Thomas Siebel run his commercials indefinitely? When they stop running, what will happen? It is ignorance and arrogance of the highest order and the author gives the impression that he hasn’t spent one day working with the nonprofit service sector.
I guess my concern with mega-philanthropists is that they have influence and resource to bulldoze through their own agendas. The article has pointed out many examples of this level of philanthropy - but I’m dreading the time when we witness someone arbitrarily making changes that we wouldn’t necessarily regard as good. Bill Gates can basically write his own ticket - let’s hope that we all agree with his priorities.
I must agree with Ryan above. The arrogance and condescension in this article is disgraceful. Articles such as What is a Donor To Do? http://www.tpi.org/downloads/pdfs/research-whats_donor_to_do.pdf has a much more respectful approach to addressing the evolution of donors from checkbook philanthropy to transformational giving. Furthermore, playing a blame game with the title, as if it is ills that business and government have failed to address should be solved by philanthropy (when they weren’t solved by business or government). The last thing we need to do is blame the generous souls who go beyond their peers with their compassion by offering their resources. If anything we should point the finger at the business sector for externalizing costs at the expense of their workers, their consumers, and the communities they touch with usual flagrant disregard for the systems in which they operate. Granted personhood and yet acting all too often with little compassion, respect, or even citizenship, the business sector as a whole could take a few lessons from Mr. Kramer, if we adjust a bit of the language. But finger pointing is not going to move us into the world we want.
I am an advocate of social entrepreneurship and a fan of blended models of business and social benefit. I believe it is more that these address gaps in our tool belt. I agree that we need to collaborate more, and innovate ever more effective ways of addressing the issues we face - individually and collectively. I have doubts that nonprofits are eager for donors to take leadership role in guiding their programs as a learning ground for trying new tactics. Wise philanthropists know how to honor the wisdom and resources of a nonprofit while leveraging the impact of their own dollars.
Finally, I have to question the issue of audience this article addresses, for if it hopes to lure in donors and potential donors into an evolved model of philanthropy, it might be best not to insult the form of philanthropy they have been practicing. If however, it seeks an audience of non-philanthropic individuals driven by the business-approach can solve the world…well then, write on. (although business collaboration networks in competitive markets….mmm…yeah, where are those?)
To be clear, I appreciate the success stories here…and I don’t dispute them. Nor do I dispute the need for evolving philanthropy. In fact, I am an avid supporter of evolving philanthropy. What I take issue with here is the style, tone, and framing.
I have two comments on this excellent article. First, the author makes two exceptionally salient points with which most discussions about philanthropic effectiveness fail to come to grips:
“However generous the donors or hardworking the nonprofit staff, there is no assurance—nor even any likelihood—that supporting the underfunded, non-collaborative, and unaccountable approaches of the countless small nonprofits struggling to tackle an issue will actually lead to workable solutions for large-scale social problems. The contributions of conventional donors and the good work of effective nonprofits may temporarily improve matters at a particular place and time, but they are unlikely to create the lasting reform that society so urgently requires.”
“Building alliances that create the conditions for a solution to emerge and take hold is a very different pursuit from the usual grantmaking process of trying to direct funds to the one organization that offers the most appealing approach. Systemic reform requires a relentless and unending campaign that galvanizes the attention of the many stakeholders involved and unifies their efforts around the pursuit of a common goal.”
Mr. Kramer is quite right on both counts and no discussion about “systemic change” can be considered serious unless it addresses these two issues.
Second, one factor Mr. Kramer might have overlooked is the choice of the “common goals” on which catalytic philanthropists have focused. Though they can fairly be described as what “Good to Great” author Jim Collins famously called “big hairy audacious goals” or “BHAGS,” they were BHAGS that were amenable to meaningful progress. Kramer’s examples include reducing meth abuse, bringing microfinance to Arab countries, defragmenting education reform, raising fuel efficiency standards, and extending preschool education. In each case, by choosing a large and difficult, but substantially solvable problem, the insightful practices the author identifies resulted in moving the needle of social progress to a meaningful extent, something philanthropy rarely accomplishes.
Steve Goldberg, author of “Billions of Drops in Millions of Buckets: Why Philanthropy Doesn’t Advance Social Progress”
While initiatives like Thomas Siebel’s may be important in their short-term benefits for individuals, that is, the Montana young people who did not use Meth, they do not represent lasting social change because they are not institutionalized. It is social action, but I am not sure it is “philanthropy.” To use the old story, it saves some starfish stranded on the beach (and that is a good thing), but it does not alter the tides.
Kramer suggests that individual donors (apparently including venture philanthropists) support organizations merely because they “have neither the time nor the resources” to do otherwise. As for hospitals, universities, and cultural organizations, Kramer says that they “focus primarily on their own institutional sustainability.” So, apparently, donors who support them have no social concerns at all!
To the contrary, philanthropists support nonprofit organizations, including hospitals, universities, and cultural institutions, because they are essential elements of social infrastructure. They create social benefits now as well as for future generations. Change that lasts. In addition, many donors believe that the professionals who manage nonprofit organizations and their programs may just have some specialized knowledge and skills related to the problems they address, including, for example, Meth addiction. They would prefer to support proven models rather than create their own.
It is ironic that an article in the same issue of SSIR describes the achievements of Fred Krupp in his 24 years as CEO of the Environmental Defense Fund. He has had significant impact. He did it by building an organization – one that will continue to bring change long after his own tenure.
Michael Worth
Professor of Nonprofit Management
The George Washington University
These ideas are explored in greater detail in Anheier and Leat’s (2006) book, “Creative Philanthropy.” They, too, urge donors and foundations to take a proactive approach to innovation by, among other things, moving from “demonstration” to “implementation,” creating campaigns, mobilizing both human and financial resources for action, and creating and disseminating knowledge. Anheier and Leat cite example of foundations (including Casey, Pew, Knight, and Wallace) that have initiated campaigns, mobilized stakeholders, engaged in advocacy, and generated and diffused knowledge.
Is “catalytic philanthropy” a truly innovative model, or simply new jargon for a field already overburdened with insider lingo?
This is nonsense. A typical move away from Donating to those who need it, to donating to whoever needs it. On the Surface it looks innovative, and it is, but its like creative financing, it is justification to siphon much needed core funds to advertise, proselytize, and “educate”, the Philanthropist, and his audience, with terminology Like “effective” donor, “Actionable knowledge” and of course “catalytic” philathropy
This type of financial gimmickry is what will drive us into the 22nd century, alive or dead.
The Fall 2009 issue has two excellent feature articles that promote new perspectives, strategies and opportunities for philanthropists, both individual and institutional – “Catalytic Philanthropy” and “The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle.” Each makes a compelling case for reform and renewal in philanthropy. On one hand, a philanthropist can be a catalyst of systemic change by focusing diverse actors on a key problem or obstacle. On the other hand, a philanthropist can build capacity in the non-profit sector by providing realistic financial support for organizational infrastructure. Both are sorely needed, so I hope these will become compatible rather than competitive trends.
However, these two articles could be interpreted to offer fundamentally inconsistent advice for philanthropists – focus on the cause not the organization vs. focus on the organization not the cause. Taken together they lead to powerful results. Taken separately they create conflict that prevents results.
“Catalytic Philanthropy” has another unexamined implication. I hesitate to make this point, because I fully support the author’s thesis, and I know too well that an author cannot communicate effectively and still cover all the possible angles. But this angle is really too important to ignore—the wealthy and successful have disproportionate and unaccountable power to influence the course of society. “Catalytic Philanthropy” encourages use of this power without sufficient reminder that a person of wealth and success in one sphere of society or business does not necessarily have better information or analysis of social ills and their causes. So his or her power to champion a particular theory of change by marshalling diverse actors with relevant expertise, influence and money is not necessarily a good thing for the larger social, economic and ecological systems. In principle and in fact, the catalytic philanthropist’s power to act on his or her own theory, especially when sheltered by unassailably good intentions, is a fundamental threat to inclusive, pluralistic, democratic society. Why? Because he or she is not accountable to the normal checks and balances that produce broadly acceptable compromise.
I am as impatient a social activist as any, but I have been humbled enough (and humiliated enough) by my own ignorance to exercise due caution. I have to listen carefully to and even be accountable to competing theorists of change. Wealthy and successful people often haven’t been made so painfully aware of their own ignorance. “If I were king of the world” is an interesting thought experiment, but most of us would not want to live with the consequences of those experiments turned into real life. Perhaps I make too much of this “remote” threat from the wealthy and successful philanthropic catalyst, but a threat unnamed is all the more dangerous.
Christopher Dunford
President
Freedom from Hunger
Davis, California
Mark, I’m a bit surprised that you lead with, and rely on, the Montana Meth Project as a shining example of what you’re coining catalytic philanthropy.
In your piece you note:
“Catalytic philanthropists,however, must be as cautious as they are bold. Considerable havoc has been wrought, and billions of dollars wasted, by donors whose success in business or other fields has convinced them that they can single-handedly solve a social problem that no one else has solved before. Philanthropists cannot catalyze change by acting alone or imposing a solution, convinced that they have the answer before they begin. Instead, they must listen to and work with others, enabling stakeholders to develop their own solutions.”
In light of the documentation that has surfaced on the somewhat specious nature of the Montana Meth Project’s success claims (1) (2), and the project’s reported dismissal of calls for better transparency in their reporting, couldn’t it be argued that Mr. Siebel has himself fallen victim to the downsides of catalytic philanthropy, determining an answer up front and not listening to others who offer constructive criticism?
I like the number of cases you present in your article. They represent a wide range of approaches and target groups. What I would have liked to see more of in your article was a discussion of the evidence that was brought to bear by these philanthropists to link their deeds to the impacts. What I fear is that much of the work in catalytic philanthropy results in implementation outputs which are used as proxies for impact. While there is great benefit to be accrued from “process use” (3), it would be wonderful if we knew the resources spent on inputs were matched with resources for program evaluators to provide formative feedback and determine generalizable, scalable impacts.
The notion of catalytic philanthropy is a great but the success of the Montana Meth programme is a poor peg on which to hang an idea. There is much evidence to suggest that change occurred because of other drivers. I have been passionate about building community resilience against use of meth in New Zealand and have used community action techniques to do so. The NZ approach, which seems to have reduced meth use by around 50% has operated under a broad integrated strategy call the PM’s Meth Action Plan. Meth remains a serious issue in Aotearoa. The recent work by the NZ Drug Foundation in building a broad consensus as to how to tackle problems with the use of intoxicants in general coupled with the NZ Government’s three pillar “harm minimisation” philosophy (Supply Control, Demand Reduction, Problem Limitation) and a health focus on the issue rather than a criminal justice focus looks most likely to achieve a shared goal of an Aotearoa free from drug-related harm
COMMENTS
BY Dr.YKK (Yew Kam Keong)
ON August 20, 2009 04:50 PM
Catalytic Philanthropy - what a fantastic social innovation! This article should be circulated to all philanthropic organisations to tackle social problems at its roots rather than treating the symptoms. It is also a great lesson for government agencies dealing with social issues as well. One crucial issue in Australia and probably in many parts of the developed world is obesity. Using the catalytic approach I think will be far more cost effective and bring about the desired results rather than the traditional approaches.
BY ryan
ON August 21, 2009 07:37 AM
There is nothing this author is saying that isn’t currently being done. 501c4s lobby - many 501c3s “educate.” Some nonprofits do pay for expensive advertising campaigns. Some nonprofits do engage the targeted cohorts in an effort to address a problem. Most nonprofit do practice some form of self evaluation - most foundations require some measures to show results, impacts, and accountability. And, yes, most nonprofits and many foundations do actually collaborate and talk to each other within and across fields and within a service area. Most seek out best practices and there are libraries full of materials - take a trip to a school of Social Work and talk to somebody. Sure, most non-profits would be happy to have additional capital to engage in additional activities, have more competitive salaries, etc. - thank you, when can we expect the check. The only thing novel the author seems to be suggesting - other than snappy lingo - is that in addition to the the plethora of non-profits we need thousands of rich people running around thinking they are experts, throwing their money at problems. Will Thomas Siebel run his commercials indefinitely? When they stop running, what will happen? It is ignorance and arrogance of the highest order and the author gives the impression that he hasn’t spent one day working with the nonprofit service sector.
BY Rob Lavery
ON August 21, 2009 09:52 AM
I guess my concern with mega-philanthropists is that they have influence and resource to bulldoze through their own agendas. The article has pointed out many examples of this level of philanthropy - but I’m dreading the time when we witness someone arbitrarily making changes that we wouldn’t necessarily regard as good. Bill Gates can basically write his own ticket - let’s hope that we all agree with his priorities.
BY Jean
ON August 26, 2009 06:35 PM
I must agree with Ryan above. The arrogance and condescension in this article is disgraceful. Articles such as What is a Donor To Do? http://www.tpi.org/downloads/pdfs/research-whats_donor_to_do.pdf has a much more respectful approach to addressing the evolution of donors from checkbook philanthropy to transformational giving. Furthermore, playing a blame game with the title, as if it is ills that business and government have failed to address should be solved by philanthropy (when they weren’t solved by business or government). The last thing we need to do is blame the generous souls who go beyond their peers with their compassion by offering their resources. If anything we should point the finger at the business sector for externalizing costs at the expense of their workers, their consumers, and the communities they touch with usual flagrant disregard for the systems in which they operate. Granted personhood and yet acting all too often with little compassion, respect, or even citizenship, the business sector as a whole could take a few lessons from Mr. Kramer, if we adjust a bit of the language. But finger pointing is not going to move us into the world we want.
I suggest a good read and then digestion of Claire Gaudiani’s book, Greater Good: How Philanthropy the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism (http://books.google.com/books?id=s2Bu-k4GvscC&dq=greater+good&printsec=frontcover&source=bll&ots=6m8IrKm6ku&sig=Hj8wm0_cU9M84pBM-pOWgeKQcgw&hl=en&ei=4dGVSrPcKNCTlAfY36mbDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q;=&f=false)
I am an advocate of social entrepreneurship and a fan of blended models of business and social benefit. I believe it is more that these address gaps in our tool belt. I agree that we need to collaborate more, and innovate ever more effective ways of addressing the issues we face - individually and collectively. I have doubts that nonprofits are eager for donors to take leadership role in guiding their programs as a learning ground for trying new tactics. Wise philanthropists know how to honor the wisdom and resources of a nonprofit while leveraging the impact of their own dollars.
Finally, I have to question the issue of audience this article addresses, for if it hopes to lure in donors and potential donors into an evolved model of philanthropy, it might be best not to insult the form of philanthropy they have been practicing. If however, it seeks an audience of non-philanthropic individuals driven by the business-approach can solve the world…well then, write on. (although business collaboration networks in competitive markets….mmm…yeah, where are those?)
To be clear, I appreciate the success stories here…and I don’t dispute them. Nor do I dispute the need for evolving philanthropy. In fact, I am an avid supporter of evolving philanthropy. What I take issue with here is the style, tone, and framing.
BY goldbergs
ON August 26, 2009 08:30 PM
I have two comments on this excellent article. First, the author makes two exceptionally salient points with which most discussions about philanthropic effectiveness fail to come to grips:
“However generous the donors or hardworking the nonprofit staff, there is no assurance—nor even any likelihood—that supporting the underfunded, non-collaborative, and unaccountable approaches of the countless small nonprofits struggling to tackle an issue will actually lead to workable solutions for large-scale social problems. The contributions of conventional donors and the good work of effective nonprofits may temporarily improve matters at a particular place and time, but they are unlikely to create the lasting reform that society so urgently requires.”
“Building alliances that create the conditions for a solution to emerge and take hold is a very different pursuit from the usual grantmaking process of trying to direct funds to the one organization that offers the most appealing approach. Systemic reform requires a relentless and unending campaign that galvanizes the attention of the many stakeholders involved and unifies their efforts around the pursuit of a common goal.”
Mr. Kramer is quite right on both counts and no discussion about “systemic change” can be considered serious unless it addresses these two issues.
Second, one factor Mr. Kramer might have overlooked is the choice of the “common goals” on which catalytic philanthropists have focused. Though they can fairly be described as what “Good to Great” author Jim Collins famously called “big hairy audacious goals” or “BHAGS,” they were BHAGS that were amenable to meaningful progress. Kramer’s examples include reducing meth abuse, bringing microfinance to Arab countries, defragmenting education reform, raising fuel efficiency standards, and extending preschool education. In each case, by choosing a large and difficult, but substantially solvable problem, the insightful practices the author identifies resulted in moving the needle of social progress to a meaningful extent, something philanthropy rarely accomplishes.
Steve Goldberg, author of “Billions of Drops in Millions of Buckets: Why Philanthropy Doesn’t Advance Social Progress”
BY Michael Worth, The George Washington University
ON August 28, 2009 01:38 PM
While initiatives like Thomas Siebel’s may be important in their short-term benefits for individuals, that is, the Montana young people who did not use Meth, they do not represent lasting social change because they are not institutionalized. It is social action, but I am not sure it is “philanthropy.” To use the old story, it saves some starfish stranded on the beach (and that is a good thing), but it does not alter the tides.
Kramer suggests that individual donors (apparently including venture philanthropists) support organizations merely because they “have neither the time nor the resources” to do otherwise. As for hospitals, universities, and cultural organizations, Kramer says that they “focus primarily on their own institutional sustainability.” So, apparently, donors who support them have no social concerns at all!
To the contrary, philanthropists support nonprofit organizations, including hospitals, universities, and cultural institutions, because they are essential elements of social infrastructure. They create social benefits now as well as for future generations. Change that lasts. In addition, many donors believe that the professionals who manage nonprofit organizations and their programs may just have some specialized knowledge and skills related to the problems they address, including, for example, Meth addiction. They would prefer to support proven models rather than create their own.
It is ironic that an article in the same issue of SSIR describes the achievements of Fred Krupp in his 24 years as CEO of the Environmental Defense Fund. He has had significant impact. He did it by building an organization – one that will continue to bring change long after his own tenure.
Michael Worth
Professor of Nonprofit Management
The George Washington University
BY Katie
ON September 1, 2009 12:14 PM
These ideas are explored in greater detail in Anheier and Leat’s (2006) book, “Creative Philanthropy.” They, too, urge donors and foundations to take a proactive approach to innovation by, among other things, moving from “demonstration” to “implementation,” creating campaigns, mobilizing both human and financial resources for action, and creating and disseminating knowledge. Anheier and Leat cite example of foundations (including Casey, Pew, Knight, and Wallace) that have initiated campaigns, mobilized stakeholders, engaged in advocacy, and generated and diffused knowledge.
Is “catalytic philanthropy” a truly innovative model, or simply new jargon for a field already overburdened with insider lingo?
BY Diiver
ON September 5, 2009 11:52 PM
What a creative idea for social innovation - a great innovative model.
BY Jack
ON September 8, 2009 02:19 AM
This is nonsense. A typical move away from Donating to those who need it, to donating to whoever needs it. On the Surface it looks innovative, and it is, but its like creative financing, it is justification to siphon much needed core funds to advertise, proselytize, and “educate”, the Philanthropist, and his audience, with terminology Like “effective” donor, “Actionable knowledge” and of course “catalytic” philathropy
This type of financial gimmickry is what will drive us into the 22nd century, alive or dead.
BY foundationwriter
ON September 16, 2009 12:08 PM
Conventional philanthropy, strategic philanthropy, venture philanthropy, tactical philanthropy, and now—catalytic philanthropy. Can’t wait to see what’s next.
BY Center for Social Innovation
ON October 28, 2009 05:09 PM
The Fall 2009 issue has two excellent feature articles that promote new perspectives, strategies and opportunities for philanthropists, both individual and institutional – “Catalytic Philanthropy” and “The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle.” Each makes a compelling case for reform and renewal in philanthropy. On one hand, a philanthropist can be a catalyst of systemic change by focusing diverse actors on a key problem or obstacle. On the other hand, a philanthropist can build capacity in the non-profit sector by providing realistic financial support for organizational infrastructure. Both are sorely needed, so I hope these will become compatible rather than competitive trends.
However, these two articles could be interpreted to offer fundamentally inconsistent advice for philanthropists – focus on the cause not the organization vs. focus on the organization not the cause. Taken together they lead to powerful results. Taken separately they create conflict that prevents results.
“Catalytic Philanthropy” has another unexamined implication. I hesitate to make this point, because I fully support the author’s thesis, and I know too well that an author cannot communicate effectively and still cover all the possible angles. But this angle is really too important to ignore—the wealthy and successful have disproportionate and unaccountable power to influence the course of society. “Catalytic Philanthropy” encourages use of this power without sufficient reminder that a person of wealth and success in one sphere of society or business does not necessarily have better information or analysis of social ills and their causes. So his or her power to champion a particular theory of change by marshalling diverse actors with relevant expertise, influence and money is not necessarily a good thing for the larger social, economic and ecological systems. In principle and in fact, the catalytic philanthropist’s power to act on his or her own theory, especially when sheltered by unassailably good intentions, is a fundamental threat to inclusive, pluralistic, democratic society. Why? Because he or she is not accountable to the normal checks and balances that produce broadly acceptable compromise.
I am as impatient a social activist as any, but I have been humbled enough (and humiliated enough) by my own ignorance to exercise due caution. I have to listen carefully to and even be accountable to competing theorists of change. Wealthy and successful people often haven’t been made so painfully aware of their own ignorance. “If I were king of the world” is an interesting thought experiment, but most of us would not want to live with the consequences of those experiments turned into real life. Perhaps I make too much of this “remote” threat from the wealthy and successful philanthropic catalyst, but a threat unnamed is all the more dangerous.
Christopher Dunford
President
Freedom from Hunger
Davis, California
BY John Nash
ON March 5, 2010 02:34 PM
Mark, I’m a bit surprised that you lead with, and rely on, the Montana Meth Project as a shining example of what you’re coining catalytic philanthropy.
In your piece you note:
“Catalytic philanthropists,however, must be as cautious as they are bold. Considerable havoc has been wrought, and billions of dollars wasted, by donors whose success in business or other fields has convinced them that they can single-handedly solve a social problem that no one else has solved before. Philanthropists cannot catalyze change by acting alone or imposing a solution, convinced that they have the answer before they begin. Instead, they must listen to and work with others, enabling stakeholders to develop their own solutions.”
In light of the documentation that has surfaced on the somewhat specious nature of the Montana Meth Project’s success claims (1) (2), and the project’s reported dismissal of calls for better transparency in their reporting, couldn’t it be argued that Mr. Siebel has himself fallen victim to the downsides of catalytic philanthropy, determining an answer up front and not listening to others who offer constructive criticism?
I like the number of cases you present in your article. They represent a wide range of approaches and target groups. What I would have liked to see more of in your article was a discussion of the evidence that was brought to bear by these philanthropists to link their deeds to the impacts. What I fear is that much of the work in catalytic philanthropy results in implementation outputs which are used as proxies for impact. While there is great benefit to be accrued from “process use” (3), it would be wonderful if we knew the resources spent on inputs were matched with resources for program evaluators to provide formative feedback and determine generalizable, scalable impacts.
References:
(1) Success of Anti-Meth Ads Questioned By Study. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081211081444.htm
(2) Montana Meth Project: Message heard, results debated. http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_0a1c803a-6912-11de-8b1b-001cc4c002e0.html
(3) Patton, M. (2008). Utilization Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
BY Denis O'Reilly
ON March 4, 2014 12:34 PM
The notion of catalytic philanthropy is a great but the success of the Montana Meth programme is a poor peg on which to hang an idea. There is much evidence to suggest that change occurred because of other drivers. I have been passionate about building community resilience against use of meth in New Zealand and have used community action techniques to do so. The NZ approach, which seems to have reduced meth use by around 50% has operated under a broad integrated strategy call the PM’s Meth Action Plan. Meth remains a serious issue in Aotearoa. The recent work by the NZ Drug Foundation in building a broad consensus as to how to tackle problems with the use of intoxicants in general coupled with the NZ Government’s three pillar “harm minimisation” philosophy (Supply Control, Demand Reduction, Problem Limitation) and a health focus on the issue rather than a criminal justice focus looks most likely to achieve a shared goal of an Aotearoa free from drug-related harm