Great article. The struggling life on an innovator is held up as a paradymn of virtue and the necessary path for shaping and honing the vision/idea/purpose. Little stock is given to the natural character of innovators which by definition is to explore, create and create new furrows of opportunity. Innovators are generally people who are driven by a passion that need to be fuelled and not dampened. Holding the balance of sustaining finances and visionary intent can be challenging. Too many innovators dilute or subvert the essence of their innovation in order to chase a funding call or piece of work. I applauded to notion of investing in a person and journeying with them to see the out working of their creative energies.
Thanks for the comment, Mike. I forgot about the ‘dampening’ down issue, which is another important reason why direct, personal support would be a game changer for many innovators.
Right on. Every investor knows that you invest in the enterpreuner. In his/her vison, values, committment, their ability to pursuade and their adapteability. The plan and the product are merly a temporarly reflection of the founding intent of the enterpreneur.
A unified effort to foster development innovation through the kind of “global development fellows program” Ken raises is spot on and overdue. These innovators focus on so many communities and community needs - and these needs are all too often related to our most pressing public issues. Whether education, economic development, health systems or poverty alleviation, such a program merits dialogue and action by those who are in a position to ensure that the innovator-community pipeline (which can be precarious), always flows. Yes to outcome on this.
Great article Ken! I couldn’t agree more for the need for new approaches to Donor funding and there are many lessons to be learnt from ‘other’ fields. I’ve always thought investing in people was what Development was all about but it seems for many reasons we’ve become more focused on projects and products (and actually often less on ideas). The idea of a global development fellows program investing in ‘people’ has lots of potential but I’m not too sure if the ‘no strings attached’ funding model (e.g. MacArthur Fellowship) would work in the Development context. There should be some accountability but maybe that doesn’t have to be the ‘standard’ approach most often expressed with logframes, simplistic metrics and onerous reporting requirements. Perhaps we need a more flexible model that addressed accountability by focusing on the value being created by great people with great ideas doing great work.
Robert - You raise a good question on the issue of restricted and unrestricted funding. Most of the social impact entrepreneurs and innovators I have known, including those who grew sustainable organizations, experience a funding imbalance in that so called ‘restricted’ funding shapes the lion’s share of their scope of work, and therefore, outcome. It is this scope that we need to open up, because it holds greater potential for more outcome. While I cannot equate restricted funding to a poor funding model, because checks and balances are important, I can attest to what is sometimes a behemoth imbalance in the degree and type of work that can be done, by individuals and groups who are already donating their time, energy and resources. Possibly this issue underpins the successes of a kickstarter or a gofundme. As an individual contributor of unrestricted funds the power of an unrestricted funding model would make my own donations exponentially worthwhile, bring balance to today’s imbalanced models, and deepen the capacities of those moving development forward.
@Lucas - You make a good point. People are the constant here, with ideas ebbing and flowing. Good entrepreneurs will develop a track record of developing good ideas, and whatever they’re working on is often a temporary focus. All the more reason to support the ‘constant’, I guess.
@Tess - I like your choice of words here - “innovator-community pipeline”. 😊 You’re right that this is all really down to those in a position to do something about it. I do wish there was a private donor or foundation out there with the belief to try something completely different. Maybe Tim Cook at Apple, who could use his $800 million to totally disrupt the donor space rather than just handing it over to them. We’ll see.
@Robert - I take your point on the ‘no strings’ issue. That said, I think many donors lull themselves into a false sense of security believing they’re ever going to really know what their money has achieved. By building projects around log frames and the like, it may make them feel better about what they’re doing but everyone knows big development has its problems. How about running a Global Development Fellowship Programme for 5 years and seeing what happens? it’s no different than giving a few million to an international NGO and trusting them to accurately report back what they achieved.
As always, complex issues. But if we don’t try, we’ll never know.
@Robert @Tess - I don’t think a day goes by without social innovators and social entrepreneurs the world over wishing there were more donors who gave unrestricted funding. The first and only time I received any was from the Omidyar Network, and it was quite liberating to say the least. During a conversation at this year’s Skoll World Forum with good friend Josh Nesbit (from Medic Mobile), he wondered if people were given a choice what they’d accept - £100,000 restricted funding or £75,000 unrestricted funding? There could be a blog post in there somewhere…
Good points Tess and Ken and I agree that the compliance model is deeply ingrained in this sector. I take you point Ken that we are at a point where we urgently need to try new approaches - your suggestion represents a small investment that could result in big returns for all!
Thank you for writing this. It hit quite close to home as I made it my professional goal to “blaze a trail” so to speak in the anti-trafficking space, but eventually found myself out of work, primarily because there just aren’t many opportunities in this sector. Many of my favorite social entrepreneurs have expressed feelings of frustration with the structure and process of philanthropic giving. Innovators love to create, implement, get messy, fail and try again. This is not necessarily conducive to being a good grantee. This also does not necessarily make for good Executive Directors, or Grant Mangers, which if you need funding, you must assume this role at some point. If you become successful, that portion of your job only gets bigger and before you know it, you stop innovating and get busier chasing grants. It’s a recipe for burn out and it is very unsustainable.
As the saying goes, “ideas are a dime a dozen, but the people who implement them are priceless.” Any organization can put together a great proposal, but if you don’t invest in people first, you might miss an opportunity to create knowledge, learn lessons and make amazing things happen.
Some really valuable insights here. Every great investor knows that the entrepreneurs they back can change their strategy, change their product, change their market—but they can’t change the raw potential of their people. A great team with a mediocre idea will improve that idea over time or find a new one, and accomplish great things. But a mediocre team with a great idea will accomplish nothing. Backing good people is the most important thing investors, and donors, can do.
The challenge of unrestricted funding Ken and Tess have raised in particular really resonates with me. Unrestricted funds are the “holy grail” of funding in the social enterprise world because they allow you to do something restricted funds don’t: grow. More R&D, stronger products, better staff—everything organizations that aspire to achieve impact at scale strive for. However a bias towards photogenic output coupled with the fear that funds will be misused if not cataloged to death with milestones and logframes means that donors are far more interested in seeing that money has been ‘spent’ rather than ‘invested’.
So how do we ensure that unrestricted funds aren’t misused? Back great people, and give them great support. A track record of ethics, accomplishment, and ambition are a far better surety of honest expenditure than any accounting system. And back up that investment with the resources and natural accountability provided through a strong support network. Just as a good board of directors helps even the best CEOs stay focused and stay on track, unrestricted funds couple with high caliber support can help turn great potential into global potential.
@Toby Norman - Agreed. There’s rarely a clear solution, especially when solving social problems that have never been solved before. A common question I’m getting from entrepreneurs is around pivoting—when it hurts relationships with partners and funders.
To your second point, as Ken and Tess mention, I just asked an entrepreneur from Kenya who’s visiting whether he would accept £100,000 restricted funding or £75,000 unrestricted funding (Ken’s question). He said it depends on the restrictions and terms of course, but he’s highly inclined to choose unrestricted because of many bad experiences in the past (data point #1, Ken?).
Adding to your point on a strong support network, as Teju Ravilochan says (and what Kevin Starr has stated here in SSIR): “If you trust your own due diligence and want to give the people you bet on the confidence to make the decisions they believe they need to make, give them unrestricted funding.”
I think the similarities are pretty apparent across the board: progress means enabling the individual to create momentum from resources and have options to act on. (Or as this anonymous CEO explains: the key to eradicating poverty is also simply getting to know a poor person—it all rest upon meaningful relations.) http://bit.ly/1tdVr6V
@Aashika - I sometimes think the system is set up as some kind of a test, to check our commitment to our cause. I know many people who have just got completely frustrated by it, people who started out just like you - full of energy, ideas and enthusiasm - only to get ground down. If we do genuinely believe that the problems people like you are tackling are important, then we need to figure out how we can make the system work better for you. That’s just not happening, though. In the meantime, we’re losing good, talented, in-demand people from a sector that needs the smartest and best if it’s to solve some of the huge challenges we’re facing.
@Toby - You touch on a great point. How many entrepreneurs succeed first time round? Stubborn determination is a huge asset in our sector - people that give up too easily are in the wrong job. And your point about backing up people with great resources is a good one. Many Fellowship programmes offer different kinds of support, but not in combination with a chunk of money to sustain the individual as they make use of it. There’s probably a perfect storm of money and resources, and we just need to figure out what that is.
@Nate - Ah, pivoting. Of course, a fully funded project will struggle big time with that. Few donors will allow a total change of course, but sometimes that’s what’s needed. Many grantees have to justify transferring as little as 10% of a budget line to the donor, so clearly things are not that flexible. As for trust, perhaps that’s what it’s all about at the end of the day. In my proposal, there’s a degree of ‘trust’ that people will do good things if they’re supported. I believe most would.
You’re right Ken, there are two major ways that some of the private foundations could make a big impact on the funding in this space.
First, like you said, is to invest in the people not just projects. In fact, project funding is what kills it all and leads to the second issue (more below). I remember many times thinking how much of a difference it would be if we could pay ourselves a more competitive salary. We’re all still dealing with kids and school, paying rent or a mortgage, and it’s incredibly hard to balance that when you’re barely making a competitive wage as you grow a business.
Second, operational/general funding is what’s needed to make something sustainable. More of this, MUCH more of this, is needed. At Ushahidi we were fortunate to have groups like Omidyar Network, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Ford and others who understood this. Due to that type of general funding being 85% of our budget, we were free to grow our core product and explore other things like building the iHub, helping grow the CrisisMappers community and spin out new companies like BRCK.
There is an opportunity here for the organizations with money to think even more outside the box and break into new territory. Some have started, but even they could go further with how they think about the resources that they have and what the individuals who lead these smaller, fledgling (or growing) organizations need.
Bravo MacArthur. Thanks for posting Ken. Donors that encourage agile & disruptive projects should themselves be exploring disruptive approaches to funding. What might be the impact of many more ‘Connectors’ given the space and creative freedom to really make things happen?
Every 2 years, Nesta publishes its New Radicals list to showcase a generation of radical thinkers, campaigners, designers and community activists working in the UK. The hope is that by shining a light on some of these people they’ll be given the recognition and encouragement needed to grow and inspire others to follow in their footsteps. But as Erik has pointed out, without funding these Radicals continue to struggle with mortgages and things (no matter how nice the recognition is).
Thought-provoking post and comments—and this applies not just to traditional donor channels but to crowdfunding as well! Crowdfunding has typically addressed projects/products, and could be extended to promising local/international social entrepreneurs in their individual capacities.
Ken your article will resonate with so many social entrepreneurs and social innovators. How many hours are spent on fundraising and then justifying activities compared with actually innovating?
I think social entrepreneurs need to be on top of the financial performance of their organisation and should be able to look at impact outcomes for M&E purposes but there needs to be a sense of balance which allows plenty of scope for innovation. Ideally, the whole organisation should be innovative but this can be challenging if donors are continually trying to force you into a box. We need to create organisations which are both effective and impactful whilst having the space to innovate at the same time.
If you look at the most successful corporations then they will spend a proportion of their budget on “Research and Development”. Nothing might come out of this area for the corporation for some years but they will keep investing in it because they know that special “something” will emerge. So, they keep innovating and keep ahead. In the charitable sector this type of activity is frowned upon because there are no immediate measurable outcomes and it is seen as a “waste of time and money” by funders.
The challenge then is to push the message that organisations in the social sector can be even better if they are allowed to spend some resources on innovation. Support for the leaders in this sector is therefore crucial and we need to encourage many more funders or donors to follow the example of the MacArthur Foundation.
@Erik - Great insights and perspective from someone who spends equal amounts of time outside of the social sector as in it. It’s scary to think that Ushahidi wouldn’t have grown and flourished from its early beginnings if you’d all not managed how to support yourselves, and each other. And, of course, you’ve now all gone on to do and build exciting new ventures. The people are the constant here, hence a need to support them as they innovate. I’m not sure what it would take for this to genuinely happen, though.
@Theo - I think the work NESTA do, shining those lights on up-and-coming innovators, is an essential component of this. It’s likely that much of the talent that could genuinely benefit from a Global Development Fellowship is largely invisible to donors. The more we can bring them to the public, sector and donor attention the better.
@Madanmohan - Ha. Maybe the answer is crowdfunded global change. I wonder if the general public would take to investing in individual innovators in a way that traditional non-profits have not?
@Mel - The time spent fundraising, and the need for balance, is one that every social innovator will recognise. And having a Founder being able to focus on the big picture, the thought leadership and the ‘thinking outside the box’ - also known as R&D I guess - could potentially unleash products and ideas that would otherwise have never seen the light of day.
Although this wasn’t included in my original post, the topic of unrestricted funding (which is, in some ways, related) has come up a few times in the comments. For those people, this might be of interest:
Thank you for this nudge, Ken – and for spreading the word about Bill’s inspiring work.
Just yesterday, I was asked how I would spend $10 million, in theory, to make the world better. Without hesitation, I responded, “Give it to people doing great things – 10 peers and colleagues who could use some jet fuel.”
People can take moral stances and dream together. They can figure out how ideas fold into and through each other in service of important goals, such ending preventable maternal and child deaths by 2030.
People-centered funding removes significant barriers for leaders. The more of this, the better!
I think that @Ashoka has done this unrestricted-we-believe-in-you sort of support for us Fellows. It is not at the scale of a MacArthur Fellow, but it is certain very much in the same vein. Most other funders don’t seem to believe that if they want innovation, then they have to LIVE the innovation they want to see in the world. If we don’t all RISK we are not going to see transformation.
I was fortunate enough to receive a Shuttleworth Fellowship - one of the least known but most amazing fellowships that I know of (it is also quite significant support: worth about $1m if they renew for 3 years - more than the McArthur - though the vast majority of this is project support not ones stipend!). Both the model of the fellowship and the support it provided was transformative. A key aspect was that they put the individual first: whilst you had to have an initial project idea, it could be vague and they knew it would evolve, sometimes beyond recognition.
You’ve really hit the nail on the head, Ken. The problem is that by funding projects rather than people, most funders are ending up with sub-optimal grants. For instance, I’ve always been astonished how government funders can give out multi-million pound grants without ever having met the grantees. Their funding process is based entirely on a piece of paper. This means they are providing funding based on how well someone has filled in the application form - their fundraising skills - rather than on how well they can do the work. Then the funders get all disappointed when their projects don’t go anywhere. But it’s hardly surprising!
We could also take your proposal one step further and encourage innovative funders to back teams rather than just individuals. Good teams are the powerhouse behind success. Funding just an individual social entrepreneur is definitely a step in the right direction, but runs the risk of considering the individual in a vacuum.
Great article Ken. I think it’s worth also emphasising that the amount of funding required doesn’t even need to be of the magnitude that MacArthur Fellows are lucky enough to receive.
My wife and I were fortunate enough to receive a more modest, but I suspect no less transformational, £10,000 Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship (http://www.wcmt.org.uk/). WCMT fund British citizens, resident in the UK, to travel overseas to study areas of topical and personal interest, to gain knowledge and bring back best practice for the benefit of others, their profession and community, in the UK.
This programme has now empowered thousands of British Churchill Fellows to improve lives of millions.
I believe so much in the concept of fellowships that I now find myself as the UK director of another global Fellowship programme, backing the worlds leading social innovators - Ashoka (http://www.ashoka.org). We back people not programmes and we stick with the people we support for life. But I’m bias about our good work so I’ll leave others to comment.
There is a great deal of potential to rethink funding models, move them to more broadly capture (and maximize) the/an innovator-community pipeline across lifecycles. What I mean here…first, most of us have acknowledged not simply needs for unrestricted funding, but have delved into the constrictive nature of most of today’s readily available models.
Where lack of fund/ing flexibility leads to a trifecta of increased funder-innovator-project frameworks that have as an implication, decreased innovator-community pipelines, I raise this question: do more flexible models open up to funders wider opportunities to discover from innovators and the communities they help (to help themselves)?
Yes.
So, one benefit is very much a deeper and I say appropriate connection between funders and innovator-community discovery.
In real terms, I’m asking that funders formalize what @Mike describes as the “passion” and “creativity” of the innovator, as well as the creativity that arises from within communities the innovator touches. These are not the same aspects in a pipeline, but interconnected and necessary elements through which innovation takes form and is realized…and then evolves.
On the fellowship structure @Rufus Pollock outlined. When invited to explore a broad idea, one is also invited to then drill this idea down. Again, I invite funders to formalize models that account for this “transformative” framework and its outcomes.
@Toby Norman and @Nate - great points on funding people, teams and ideas - as @Nate says, ideas for issues ‘that have never been solved” before. Right? Here, lifecycles mean we acknowledge the fact that a single innovation can and does evolve to address a number of community needs in more ways and under more conditions than initially imagined.
Let’s offer models that connect funders, innovators, communities and discovery, formalize what and who it really takes to solve issues that have never been solved before, accept concept/people/project evolution as the transformative nature of funding and as known benefits and outcomes, and heed the many accounts here (@Erik, @Rob and others) that are driving us to focus on people and the quick wins as well as long term results of innovation lifecycles.
@Rob - Ken, Nick, and I are all Ashoka Fellows (sorry if there are others here that I missed)- and yes, absolutely the focus on me as a person has made a huge difference. I am in the Well Being program beginning Saturday in Ireland - another example of Ashoka’s support and recognition that the inner life is also important.
@Josh - If I ever ended up in the fortunate position of running a large Foundation budget, or won the lottery, this would certainly be one of the first things I’d do, and is certainly how I would have answered the question.
@Sharon @Rob - I don’t think you’d find a single Ashoka Fellow who is not hugely enthusiastic and impressed with the work the organisation does for them - financially, emotionally and personally. It’s by far one of the most useful, active Fellows networks I’m in I would say, and it’s been massive for me in my work. To your point on smaller amounts, Rob, my journey effectively began in 1993 with a subsidised aid project to Zambia. The couple of thousand pounds that the Jersey Overseas Aid Committee put my way have shaped a life-long career. So, yes - smaller amounts at the right time can be significant.
@Rufus - I’d not heard of the Shuttleworth Fellowship until I wrote the first version of this post on my blog. Yes, a great programme with considerable support for the individual. As you say, the Fellows project is still a large component, so it’s not quite an inconditional gift in the shape of a MacArthur Fellowship, but it is great to see other Foundations thinking along the ‘investing in people’ lines.
@Nick - Many grants are given on the basis of how well people can write proposals, and how well they can sell their projects, true. That’s why I’m a big fan of awards where people don’t apply, or compete for - my National Geographic Emerging Explorer award, for example. With investing in teams, it would certainly be an interesting avenue to explore but I can imagine there being more challenges (teams moving on, breaking up, etc).
@Tess - I like your thinking here. I’ll drop you a line if I get given a few million to pilot something!
@Ken,you spoke on behalf of thousands of us who lack the opportunity to access what is needed to push our ideas into the next level and thus accelerate impact.
Being an Ashoka fellow,this is the leap i needed to make issues of employment for persons with disabilities important in Kenya,and they trusted me the individual while according me the freedom of mind to continue this important work.
The opportunity to speak at Skoll Forum in 2o14 was just superb,stuff restricted funding to our initiatives never achieve.
Now i am into my next level of innovation still in the field of employment but it seems very difficult to locate people who can trust you the individual with their resource for you to carry out the mission
Ken,
It’s heartening to see you wave the banner of sanity and fairness on several fronts, as the system would benefit from moving even a few degrees in this direction. I have worked for several years with Bill Siemering, and the world is immeasurably better due to his decades of working with community radio stations. We’ve lost many great visionaries, because visionary is not always an easy person to place - or replace once they’ve left the arena.
Cheers!
Investing in individuals is also about investing in relationships. At African Prisons Project we believe that individuals are the key agents of change and we invest in people in some of the most challenging environments imaginable - prisons in Uganda and Kenya. By working with trust and respect we have been able to harness the power of individuals to achieve major shifts in awareness about human rights, education and health. The need for what we do is more urgent than can be imagined, however without the power of individuals it wouldn’t happen at all.
@Fredrick - It’s certainly important to realise that not all issues are priorities for donors. For people like yourself doing work not on the radar of many donors, receiving the support you need to continue your work is clearly important. If you don’t support the work, then support the person.
@Rose - Nice to hear a Bill connection. I couldn’t agree more that the world is a better place because of his efforts.
@Alexander - Thanks for sharing your work. Inspiring to say the least, and a clear example of the importance in believing in, and supporting, the individual.
I think we’ll all now have to wait and see if we witness any future shift in how donors distribute their funds. I’m happy to continue the conversation here, and/or offline. Contact details are available at http://www.kiwanja.net/contact.htm
the MacArthur Fellowships is certainly amplifying the good that exceptional people can do. I merely thought that fellowships where there for research, but i like these ones which are there to amplify impact
Imagine if a small, private foundation picked 14 women working on global programs - women with a track record of vision, thought-leadership, and execution, working and living anywhere in the world - and really got behind them? That’s exactly what we have just done at the Jewish Women’s Foundation of New York through a new global initiative with a very special mission - to invest in women social entrepreneurs whose work improves the lives of the world’s most vulnerable women and children. Our 19 investors just closed our second funding cycle with investments in 14 women social entrepreneurs whose work is benefiting more than 50,000 women and children across 16 countries.
Our vision is to inspire other foundations and donors to do exactly the same - identify and back women leaders with truly transformative development visions. We applaud this approach Ken and encourage more donors to get behind these ideas
@Morgan - Agreed. Many Fellowships are based on work done (with a proposal for future work). It’s nice to see a Fellowship largely focused on helping increase an individual’s impact, wherever and whatever he or she wants that to be.
@Leith - Thanks so much for sharing that. I wonder how many more Foundations are doing this off the radar? Either way, it would be great to see more make a specific focus on people.
Your insights here remind me of the advice from a former mentor, John Gardner. To paraphrase John’s advice, “If you want to change the world, invest in people.” We need to broaden our thinking FROM the project and milestone paradigms of grant making and venture capital TO include a more experimental paradigm centered on people with demonstrated track records of successful and catalytic innovation.
Pakistan draws visitors who come for a variety of reasons. Some are lured by the call of the mountains and seeking to climb or trek in the Karakorum, Himalaya, Hindu Kush, others are intrigued by the culture and the famous city, and yet others come hoping to find some sort of spiritual awakening. Pakisatan can be an adrenaline adventure, a cultural eye opener, or a life-changing experience, depending on the itinerary and mindset of the traveler.
Most visitors will spend some time in baltistan skardu khaplu hunza visiting sacred and historic attractions, and then head out into other parts of the country.
i want to build a Memorial Moment, those local and international climbers who have died trying to reach the summit of K2 and other Karakoram peaks. I like to get in touch with some one who can help me out with my small project
COMMENTS
BY Mike Santer
ON April 22, 2015 09:36 AM
Great article. The struggling life on an innovator is held up as a paradymn of virtue and the necessary path for shaping and honing the vision/idea/purpose. Little stock is given to the natural character of innovators which by definition is to explore, create and create new furrows of opportunity. Innovators are generally people who are driven by a passion that need to be fuelled and not dampened. Holding the balance of sustaining finances and visionary intent can be challenging. Too many innovators dilute or subvert the essence of their innovation in order to chase a funding call or piece of work. I applauded to notion of investing in a person and journeying with them to see the out working of their creative energies.
BY kiwanja
ON April 22, 2015 09:50 AM
Thanks for the comment, Mike. I forgot about the ‘dampening’ down issue, which is another important reason why direct, personal support would be a game changer for many innovators.
BY Lucas Simons
ON April 22, 2015 10:07 AM
Right on. Every investor knows that you invest in the enterpreuner. In his/her vison, values, committment, their ability to pursuade and their adapteability. The plan and the product are merly a temporarly reflection of the founding intent of the enterpreneur.
BY Tess Conner
ON April 22, 2015 11:22 AM
A unified effort to foster development innovation through the kind of “global development fellows program” Ken raises is spot on and overdue. These innovators focus on so many communities and community needs - and these needs are all too often related to our most pressing public issues. Whether education, economic development, health systems or poverty alleviation, such a program merits dialogue and action by those who are in a position to ensure that the innovator-community pipeline (which can be precarious), always flows. Yes to outcome on this.
BY Robert Fitzgerald
ON April 22, 2015 12:54 PM
Great article Ken! I couldn’t agree more for the need for new approaches to Donor funding and there are many lessons to be learnt from ‘other’ fields. I’ve always thought investing in people was what Development was all about but it seems for many reasons we’ve become more focused on projects and products (and actually often less on ideas). The idea of a global development fellows program investing in ‘people’ has lots of potential but I’m not too sure if the ‘no strings attached’ funding model (e.g. MacArthur Fellowship) would work in the Development context. There should be some accountability but maybe that doesn’t have to be the ‘standard’ approach most often expressed with logframes, simplistic metrics and onerous reporting requirements. Perhaps we need a more flexible model that addressed accountability by focusing on the value being created by great people with great ideas doing great work.
BY Tess Conner
ON April 22, 2015 01:13 PM
Robert - You raise a good question on the issue of restricted and unrestricted funding. Most of the social impact entrepreneurs and innovators I have known, including those who grew sustainable organizations, experience a funding imbalance in that so called ‘restricted’ funding shapes the lion’s share of their scope of work, and therefore, outcome. It is this scope that we need to open up, because it holds greater potential for more outcome. While I cannot equate restricted funding to a poor funding model, because checks and balances are important, I can attest to what is sometimes a behemoth imbalance in the degree and type of work that can be done, by individuals and groups who are already donating their time, energy and resources. Possibly this issue underpins the successes of a kickstarter or a gofundme. As an individual contributor of unrestricted funds the power of an unrestricted funding model would make my own donations exponentially worthwhile, bring balance to today’s imbalanced models, and deepen the capacities of those moving development forward.
BY kiwanja
ON April 22, 2015 01:16 PM
@Lucas - You make a good point. People are the constant here, with ideas ebbing and flowing. Good entrepreneurs will develop a track record of developing good ideas, and whatever they’re working on is often a temporary focus. All the more reason to support the ‘constant’, I guess.
@Tess - I like your choice of words here - “innovator-community pipeline”. 😊 You’re right that this is all really down to those in a position to do something about it. I do wish there was a private donor or foundation out there with the belief to try something completely different. Maybe Tim Cook at Apple, who could use his $800 million to totally disrupt the donor space rather than just handing it over to them. We’ll see.
@Robert - I take your point on the ‘no strings’ issue. That said, I think many donors lull themselves into a false sense of security believing they’re ever going to really know what their money has achieved. By building projects around log frames and the like, it may make them feel better about what they’re doing but everyone knows big development has its problems. How about running a Global Development Fellowship Programme for 5 years and seeing what happens? it’s no different than giving a few million to an international NGO and trusting them to accurately report back what they achieved.
As always, complex issues. But if we don’t try, we’ll never know.
BY kiwanja
ON April 22, 2015 01:27 PM
@Robert @Tess - I don’t think a day goes by without social innovators and social entrepreneurs the world over wishing there were more donors who gave unrestricted funding. The first and only time I received any was from the Omidyar Network, and it was quite liberating to say the least. During a conversation at this year’s Skoll World Forum with good friend Josh Nesbit (from Medic Mobile), he wondered if people were given a choice what they’d accept - £100,000 restricted funding or £75,000 unrestricted funding? There could be a blog post in there somewhere…
BY Robert Fitzgerald
ON April 22, 2015 01:43 PM
Good points Tess and Ken and I agree that the compliance model is deeply ingrained in this sector. I take you point Ken that we are at a point where we urgently need to try new approaches - your suggestion represents a small investment that could result in big returns for all!
BY Caroline Griffiths
ON April 22, 2015 02:07 PM
An incredible gift!
BY Aashika
ON April 22, 2015 02:45 PM
Thank you for writing this. It hit quite close to home as I made it my professional goal to “blaze a trail” so to speak in the anti-trafficking space, but eventually found myself out of work, primarily because there just aren’t many opportunities in this sector. Many of my favorite social entrepreneurs have expressed feelings of frustration with the structure and process of philanthropic giving. Innovators love to create, implement, get messy, fail and try again. This is not necessarily conducive to being a good grantee. This also does not necessarily make for good Executive Directors, or Grant Mangers, which if you need funding, you must assume this role at some point. If you become successful, that portion of your job only gets bigger and before you know it, you stop innovating and get busier chasing grants. It’s a recipe for burn out and it is very unsustainable.
As the saying goes, “ideas are a dime a dozen, but the people who implement them are priceless.” Any organization can put together a great proposal, but if you don’t invest in people first, you might miss an opportunity to create knowledge, learn lessons and make amazing things happen.
BY Toby Norman
ON April 22, 2015 04:17 PM
Some really valuable insights here. Every great investor knows that the entrepreneurs they back can change their strategy, change their product, change their market—but they can’t change the raw potential of their people. A great team with a mediocre idea will improve that idea over time or find a new one, and accomplish great things. But a mediocre team with a great idea will accomplish nothing. Backing good people is the most important thing investors, and donors, can do.
The challenge of unrestricted funding Ken and Tess have raised in particular really resonates with me. Unrestricted funds are the “holy grail” of funding in the social enterprise world because they allow you to do something restricted funds don’t: grow. More R&D, stronger products, better staff—everything organizations that aspire to achieve impact at scale strive for. However a bias towards photogenic output coupled with the fear that funds will be misused if not cataloged to death with milestones and logframes means that donors are far more interested in seeing that money has been ‘spent’ rather than ‘invested’.
So how do we ensure that unrestricted funds aren’t misused? Back great people, and give them great support. A track record of ethics, accomplishment, and ambition are a far better surety of honest expenditure than any accounting system. And back up that investment with the resources and natural accountability provided through a strong support network. Just as a good board of directors helps even the best CEOs stay focused and stay on track, unrestricted funds couple with high caliber support can help turn great potential into global potential.
BY nate
ON April 22, 2015 05:58 PM
@Toby Norman - Agreed. There’s rarely a clear solution, especially when solving social problems that have never been solved before. A common question I’m getting from entrepreneurs is around pivoting—when it hurts relationships with partners and funders.
To your second point, as Ken and Tess mention, I just asked an entrepreneur from Kenya who’s visiting whether he would accept £100,000 restricted funding or £75,000 unrestricted funding (Ken’s question). He said it depends on the restrictions and terms of course, but he’s highly inclined to choose unrestricted because of many bad experiences in the past (data point #1, Ken?).
Adding to your point on a strong support network, as Teju Ravilochan says (and what Kevin Starr has stated here in SSIR): “If you trust your own due diligence and want to give the people you bet on the confidence to make the decisions they believe they need to make, give them unrestricted funding.”
I think the similarities are pretty apparent across the board: progress means enabling the individual to create momentum from resources and have options to act on. (Or as this anonymous CEO explains: the key to eradicating poverty is also simply getting to know a poor person—it all rest upon meaningful relations.) http://bit.ly/1tdVr6V
BY kiwanja
ON April 23, 2015 01:40 AM
@Aashika - I sometimes think the system is set up as some kind of a test, to check our commitment to our cause. I know many people who have just got completely frustrated by it, people who started out just like you - full of energy, ideas and enthusiasm - only to get ground down. If we do genuinely believe that the problems people like you are tackling are important, then we need to figure out how we can make the system work better for you. That’s just not happening, though. In the meantime, we’re losing good, talented, in-demand people from a sector that needs the smartest and best if it’s to solve some of the huge challenges we’re facing.
@Toby - You touch on a great point. How many entrepreneurs succeed first time round? Stubborn determination is a huge asset in our sector - people that give up too easily are in the wrong job. And your point about backing up people with great resources is a good one. Many Fellowship programmes offer different kinds of support, but not in combination with a chunk of money to sustain the individual as they make use of it. There’s probably a perfect storm of money and resources, and we just need to figure out what that is.
@Nate - Ah, pivoting. Of course, a fully funded project will struggle big time with that. Few donors will allow a total change of course, but sometimes that’s what’s needed. Many grantees have to justify transferring as little as 10% of a budget line to the donor, so clearly things are not that flexible. As for trust, perhaps that’s what it’s all about at the end of the day. In my proposal, there’s a degree of ‘trust’ that people will do good things if they’re supported. I believe most would.
BY Felicity Cremin
ON April 23, 2015 07:52 AM
Excellent article!
BY Erik Hersman
ON April 23, 2015 08:06 AM
You’re right Ken, there are two major ways that some of the private foundations could make a big impact on the funding in this space.
First, like you said, is to invest in the people not just projects. In fact, project funding is what kills it all and leads to the second issue (more below). I remember many times thinking how much of a difference it would be if we could pay ourselves a more competitive salary. We’re all still dealing with kids and school, paying rent or a mortgage, and it’s incredibly hard to balance that when you’re barely making a competitive wage as you grow a business.
Second, operational/general funding is what’s needed to make something sustainable. More of this, MUCH more of this, is needed. At Ushahidi we were fortunate to have groups like Omidyar Network, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Ford and others who understood this. Due to that type of general funding being 85% of our budget, we were free to grow our core product and explore other things like building the iHub, helping grow the CrisisMappers community and spin out new companies like BRCK.
There is an opportunity here for the organizations with money to think even more outside the box and break into new territory. Some have started, but even they could go further with how they think about the resources that they have and what the individuals who lead these smaller, fledgling (or growing) organizations need.
BY Theo Keane
ON April 24, 2015 03:40 AM
Bravo MacArthur. Thanks for posting Ken. Donors that encourage agile & disruptive projects should themselves be exploring disruptive approaches to funding. What might be the impact of many more ‘Connectors’ given the space and creative freedom to really make things happen?
Every 2 years, Nesta publishes its New Radicals list to showcase a generation of radical thinkers, campaigners, designers and community activists working in the UK. The hope is that by shining a light on some of these people they’ll be given the recognition and encouragement needed to grow and inspire others to follow in their footsteps. But as Erik has pointed out, without funding these Radicals continue to struggle with mortgages and things (no matter how nice the recognition is).
BY Madanmohan Rao
ON April 24, 2015 03:40 AM
Thought-provoking post and comments—and this applies not just to traditional donor channels but to crowdfunding as well! Crowdfunding has typically addressed projects/products, and could be extended to promising local/international social entrepreneurs in their individual capacities.
BY Mel Young
ON April 24, 2015 04:41 AM
Ken your article will resonate with so many social entrepreneurs and social innovators. How many hours are spent on fundraising and then justifying activities compared with actually innovating?
I think social entrepreneurs need to be on top of the financial performance of their organisation and should be able to look at impact outcomes for M&E purposes but there needs to be a sense of balance which allows plenty of scope for innovation. Ideally, the whole organisation should be innovative but this can be challenging if donors are continually trying to force you into a box. We need to create organisations which are both effective and impactful whilst having the space to innovate at the same time.
If you look at the most successful corporations then they will spend a proportion of their budget on “Research and Development”. Nothing might come out of this area for the corporation for some years but they will keep investing in it because they know that special “something” will emerge. So, they keep innovating and keep ahead. In the charitable sector this type of activity is frowned upon because there are no immediate measurable outcomes and it is seen as a “waste of time and money” by funders.
The challenge then is to push the message that organisations in the social sector can be even better if they are allowed to spend some resources on innovation. Support for the leaders in this sector is therefore crucial and we need to encourage many more funders or donors to follow the example of the MacArthur Foundation.
BY kiwanja
ON April 24, 2015 05:52 AM
@Erik - Great insights and perspective from someone who spends equal amounts of time outside of the social sector as in it. It’s scary to think that Ushahidi wouldn’t have grown and flourished from its early beginnings if you’d all not managed how to support yourselves, and each other. And, of course, you’ve now all gone on to do and build exciting new ventures. The people are the constant here, hence a need to support them as they innovate. I’m not sure what it would take for this to genuinely happen, though.
@Theo - I think the work NESTA do, shining those lights on up-and-coming innovators, is an essential component of this. It’s likely that much of the talent that could genuinely benefit from a Global Development Fellowship is largely invisible to donors. The more we can bring them to the public, sector and donor attention the better.
@Madanmohan - Ha. Maybe the answer is crowdfunded global change. I wonder if the general public would take to investing in individual innovators in a way that traditional non-profits have not?
@Mel - The time spent fundraising, and the need for balance, is one that every social innovator will recognise. And having a Founder being able to focus on the big picture, the thought leadership and the ‘thinking outside the box’ - also known as R&D I guess - could potentially unleash products and ideas that would otherwise have never seen the light of day.
BY kiwanja
ON April 24, 2015 06:46 AM
Although this wasn’t included in my original post, the topic of unrestricted funding (which is, in some ways, related) has come up a few times in the comments. For those people, this might be of interest:
Let’s Put An End To Restricted Giving
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2014/11/24/lets-put-an-end-to-restricted-giving/
BY Josh Nesbit
ON April 24, 2015 06:49 AM
Thank you for this nudge, Ken – and for spreading the word about Bill’s inspiring work.
Just yesterday, I was asked how I would spend $10 million, in theory, to make the world better. Without hesitation, I responded, “Give it to people doing great things – 10 peers and colleagues who could use some jet fuel.”
People can take moral stances and dream together. They can figure out how ideas fold into and through each other in service of important goals, such ending preventable maternal and child deaths by 2030.
People-centered funding removes significant barriers for leaders. The more of this, the better!
BY Sharon F. Terry
ON April 24, 2015 07:03 AM
Ken, thanks for writing this important piece.
I think that @Ashoka has done this unrestricted-we-believe-in-you sort of support for us Fellows. It is not at the scale of a MacArthur Fellow, but it is certain very much in the same vein. Most other funders don’t seem to believe that if they want innovation, then they have to LIVE the innovation they want to see in the world. If we don’t all RISK we are not going to see transformation.
Thanks for raising this important topic!
BY Rufus Pollock
ON April 24, 2015 07:05 AM
Great article Ken.
I was fortunate enough to receive a Shuttleworth Fellowship - one of the least known but most amazing fellowships that I know of (it is also quite significant support: worth about $1m if they renew for 3 years - more than the McArthur - though the vast majority of this is project support not ones stipend!). Both the model of the fellowship and the support it provided was transformative. A key aspect was that they put the individual first: whilst you had to have an initial project idea, it could be vague and they knew it would evolve, sometimes beyond recognition.
BY Nick Sireau
ON April 26, 2015 08:01 AM
You’ve really hit the nail on the head, Ken. The problem is that by funding projects rather than people, most funders are ending up with sub-optimal grants. For instance, I’ve always been astonished how government funders can give out multi-million pound grants without ever having met the grantees. Their funding process is based entirely on a piece of paper. This means they are providing funding based on how well someone has filled in the application form - their fundraising skills - rather than on how well they can do the work. Then the funders get all disappointed when their projects don’t go anywhere. But it’s hardly surprising!
We could also take your proposal one step further and encourage innovative funders to back teams rather than just individuals. Good teams are the powerhouse behind success. Funding just an individual social entrepreneur is definitely a step in the right direction, but runs the risk of considering the individual in a vacuum.
BY Rob Wilson
ON April 26, 2015 09:58 AM
Great article Ken. I think it’s worth also emphasising that the amount of funding required doesn’t even need to be of the magnitude that MacArthur Fellows are lucky enough to receive.
My wife and I were fortunate enough to receive a more modest, but I suspect no less transformational, £10,000 Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship (http://www.wcmt.org.uk/). WCMT fund British citizens, resident in the UK, to travel overseas to study areas of topical and personal interest, to gain knowledge and bring back best practice for the benefit of others, their profession and community, in the UK.
This programme has now empowered thousands of British Churchill Fellows to improve lives of millions.
I believe so much in the concept of fellowships that I now find myself as the UK director of another global Fellowship programme, backing the worlds leading social innovators - Ashoka (http://www.ashoka.org). We back people not programmes and we stick with the people we support for life. But I’m bias about our good work so I’ll leave others to comment.
BY Tess Conner
ON April 26, 2015 02:16 PM
There is a great deal of potential to rethink funding models, move them to more broadly capture (and maximize) the/an innovator-community pipeline across lifecycles. What I mean here…first, most of us have acknowledged not simply needs for unrestricted funding, but have delved into the constrictive nature of most of today’s readily available models.
Where lack of fund/ing flexibility leads to a trifecta of increased funder-innovator-project frameworks that have as an implication, decreased innovator-community pipelines, I raise this question: do more flexible models open up to funders wider opportunities to discover from innovators and the communities they help (to help themselves)?
Yes.
So, one benefit is very much a deeper and I say appropriate connection between funders and innovator-community discovery.
In real terms, I’m asking that funders formalize what @Mike describes as the “passion” and “creativity” of the innovator, as well as the creativity that arises from within communities the innovator touches. These are not the same aspects in a pipeline, but interconnected and necessary elements through which innovation takes form and is realized…and then evolves.
On the fellowship structure @Rufus Pollock outlined. When invited to explore a broad idea, one is also invited to then drill this idea down. Again, I invite funders to formalize models that account for this “transformative” framework and its outcomes.
@Toby Norman and @Nate - great points on funding people, teams and ideas - as @Nate says, ideas for issues ‘that have never been solved” before. Right? Here, lifecycles mean we acknowledge the fact that a single innovation can and does evolve to address a number of community needs in more ways and under more conditions than initially imagined.
Let’s offer models that connect funders, innovators, communities and discovery, formalize what and who it really takes to solve issues that have never been solved before, accept concept/people/project evolution as the transformative nature of funding and as known benefits and outcomes, and heed the many accounts here (@Erik, @Rob and others) that are driving us to focus on people and the quick wins as well as long term results of innovation lifecycles.
BY Sharon F. Terry
ON April 26, 2015 02:23 PM
@Rob - Ken, Nick, and I are all Ashoka Fellows (sorry if there are others here that I missed)- and yes, absolutely the focus on me as a person has made a huge difference. I am in the Well Being program beginning Saturday in Ireland - another example of Ashoka’s support and recognition that the inner life is also important.
BY kiwanja
ON April 27, 2015 01:00 AM
@Josh - If I ever ended up in the fortunate position of running a large Foundation budget, or won the lottery, this would certainly be one of the first things I’d do, and is certainly how I would have answered the question.
@Sharon @Rob - I don’t think you’d find a single Ashoka Fellow who is not hugely enthusiastic and impressed with the work the organisation does for them - financially, emotionally and personally. It’s by far one of the most useful, active Fellows networks I’m in I would say, and it’s been massive for me in my work. To your point on smaller amounts, Rob, my journey effectively began in 1993 with a subsidised aid project to Zambia. The couple of thousand pounds that the Jersey Overseas Aid Committee put my way have shaped a life-long career. So, yes - smaller amounts at the right time can be significant.
@Rufus - I’d not heard of the Shuttleworth Fellowship until I wrote the first version of this post on my blog. Yes, a great programme with considerable support for the individual. As you say, the Fellows project is still a large component, so it’s not quite an inconditional gift in the shape of a MacArthur Fellowship, but it is great to see other Foundations thinking along the ‘investing in people’ lines.
@Nick - Many grants are given on the basis of how well people can write proposals, and how well they can sell their projects, true. That’s why I’m a big fan of awards where people don’t apply, or compete for - my National Geographic Emerging Explorer award, for example. With investing in teams, it would certainly be an interesting avenue to explore but I can imagine there being more challenges (teams moving on, breaking up, etc).
@Tess - I like your thinking here. I’ll drop you a line if I get given a few million to pilot something!
BY Fredrick Ouko
ON April 27, 2015 05:43 AM
@Ken,you spoke on behalf of thousands of us who lack the opportunity to access what is needed to push our ideas into the next level and thus accelerate impact.
Being an Ashoka fellow,this is the leap i needed to make issues of employment for persons with disabilities important in Kenya,and they trusted me the individual while according me the freedom of mind to continue this important work.
The opportunity to speak at Skoll Forum in 2o14 was just superb,stuff restricted funding to our initiatives never achieve.
Now i am into my next level of innovation still in the field of employment but it seems very difficult to locate people who can trust you the individual with their resource for you to carry out the mission
BY Adam Wills
ON April 27, 2015 06:24 AM
Great post Ken - and a topic that could merit more attention when we think about how the billions of donor dollars get distributed!
BY Rose Shuman
ON April 27, 2015 03:22 PM
Ken,
It’s heartening to see you wave the banner of sanity and fairness on several fronts, as the system would benefit from moving even a few degrees in this direction. I have worked for several years with Bill Siemering, and the world is immeasurably better due to his decades of working with community radio stations. We’ve lost many great visionaries, because visionary is not always an easy person to place - or replace once they’ve left the arena.
Cheers!
BY Alexander McLean
ON April 28, 2015 06:07 PM
Investing in individuals is also about investing in relationships. At African Prisons Project we believe that individuals are the key agents of change and we invest in people in some of the most challenging environments imaginable - prisons in Uganda and Kenya. By working with trust and respect we have been able to harness the power of individuals to achieve major shifts in awareness about human rights, education and health. The need for what we do is more urgent than can be imagined, however without the power of individuals it wouldn’t happen at all.
BY kiwanja
ON April 30, 2015 01:46 AM
@Fredrick - It’s certainly important to realise that not all issues are priorities for donors. For people like yourself doing work not on the radar of many donors, receiving the support you need to continue your work is clearly important. If you don’t support the work, then support the person.
@Rose - Nice to hear a Bill connection. I couldn’t agree more that the world is a better place because of his efforts.
@Alexander - Thanks for sharing your work. Inspiring to say the least, and a clear example of the importance in believing in, and supporting, the individual.
I think we’ll all now have to wait and see if we witness any future shift in how donors distribute their funds. I’m happy to continue the conversation here, and/or offline. Contact details are available at http://www.kiwanja.net/contact.htm
BY Morgan Shantu
ON May 5, 2015 02:05 AM
the MacArthur Fellowships is certainly amplifying the good that exceptional people can do. I merely thought that fellowships where there for research, but i like these ones which are there to amplify impact
BY Leith Greenslade
ON May 26, 2015 07:56 AM
Imagine if a small, private foundation picked 14 women working on global programs - women with a track record of vision, thought-leadership, and execution, working and living anywhere in the world - and really got behind them? That’s exactly what we have just done at the Jewish Women’s Foundation of New York through a new global initiative with a very special mission - to invest in women social entrepreneurs whose work improves the lives of the world’s most vulnerable women and children. Our 19 investors just closed our second funding cycle with investments in 14 women social entrepreneurs whose work is benefiting more than 50,000 women and children across 16 countries.
Find out more here: http://www.jwfny.org/programs-initiatives/isha-koach/
Our vision is to inspire other foundations and donors to do exactly the same - identify and back women leaders with truly transformative development visions. We applaud this approach Ken and encourage more donors to get behind these ideas
BY kiwanja
ON May 27, 2015 12:29 AM
@Morgan - Agreed. Many Fellowships are based on work done (with a proposal for future work). It’s nice to see a Fellowship largely focused on helping increase an individual’s impact, wherever and whatever he or she wants that to be.
@Leith - Thanks so much for sharing that. I wonder how many more Foundations are doing this off the radar? Either way, it would be great to see more make a specific focus on people.
BY James L. Koch
ON May 29, 2015 10:51 AM
Ken,
Your insights here remind me of the advice from a former mentor, John Gardner. To paraphrase John’s advice, “If you want to change the world, invest in people.” We need to broaden our thinking FROM the project and milestone paradigms of grant making and venture capital TO include a more experimental paradigm centered on people with demonstrated track records of successful and catalytic innovation.
BY AYUB
ON May 1, 2016 12:04 AM
Pakistan draws visitors who come for a variety of reasons. Some are lured by the call of the mountains and seeking to climb or trek in the Karakorum, Himalaya, Hindu Kush, others are intrigued by the culture and the famous city, and yet others come hoping to find some sort of spiritual awakening. Pakisatan can be an adrenaline adventure, a cultural eye opener, or a life-changing experience, depending on the itinerary and mindset of the traveler.
Most visitors will spend some time in baltistan skardu khaplu hunza visiting sacred and historic attractions, and then head out into other parts of the country.
i want to build a Memorial Moment, those local and international climbers who have died trying to reach the summit of K2 and other Karakoram peaks. I like to get in touch with some one who can help me out with my small project