posted on: Thursday, January 28, 2010

By Julia Craig

A print ad from the Montana Meth Project

Those working in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors may share my feeling that at times we are swimming in jargon that gets used to the brink of meaninglessness: “strategic” philanthropy, nonprofit “effectiveness,” “impact,” “challenges and opportunities,” and so on. So when I read Mark Kramer’s article in the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) titled “Catalytic Philanthropy,” I admit I was skeptical. Was this just a new buzzword or something truly innovative?

In his article, Kramer profiled Tom Siebel, who started the Montana Meth Project after observing the detrimental effects of methamphetamine on his community. Siebel’s approach to the problem did not follow the traditional grantor-identifies-appropriate-grantee story arc. He engaged fully in the project and took responsibility for its success. Under the project, Siebel drew on existing research, conducted original research, and gathered experts from around the world to focus on making meth use socially unacceptable in Montana. You can view the 30 second commercials developed as part of the media strategy on the project’s website. (Fair warning: they’re disturbing, but that’s the point.)

The Meth Project’s success provides, perhaps, a partial answer to my question about the potential of catalytic philanthropy: according to Siebel, two years after its launch in Montana, adult meth use declined by 72% and meth-related crime decreased 62%. The Meth Project is now a national meth use prevention campaign, utilizing media, public policy advocacy, and community outreach.

On January 26, NCRP field associate Kevin Laskowski and I attended an SSIR webinar discussing the article and its implications for the philanthropic sector. The webinar included Mark Kramer and Tom Siebel, as well as Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector. Kramer explained the theory behind “catalytic philanthropy” and that one of the primary distinctions of this approach is that the donor is responsible for success, rather than the grantee. A catalytic philanthropist:

1. Takes responsibility for achieving results
2. Mobilizes a campaign for change
3. Uses all available tools and resources, including mission investing, policy advocacy, litigation and lobbying
4. Builds actionable knowledge, using that information to inform action and to influence others’ actions.

I was struck by Diana Aviv’s commentary on catalytic philanthropy; she posited that what Kramer really identified in the Meth Project was not so much the role of the philanthropist but the role of a dedicated leader willing to take the systemic approach. She pointed to Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone and Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health as examples of such leaders. Dr. Farmer’s work to bring healthcare as a force for social change began in Haiti and has expanded globally to Africa, South America and Russia. Both these leaders take responsibility for the success of their organizations, utilize all available resources – including advocacy and organizing – and involve the communities they serve in action.

So is catalytic philanthropy a new model for foundation leadership, or is it a tried and true strategy that is just now being recognized as a potential model for social change? I found it interesting that Siebel balked at being identified as a model; he was adamant that the Meth Project worked in Montana, but shied away from offering advice to other philanthropists or suggesting that they should follow suit. But he did note that the Meth Project was not the work of a “lone maverick;” rather, the project pulled together a range of people, from global experts to local teen focus groups, to address the problem.

Did you attend the webinar? Even if you didn’t, what is your reaction to the article and to the discussion of what catalytic philanthropy really means? Let us know in the comments!

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.

posted on: Thursday, July 30, 2009

Gary Snyder

I guess I am confused.

The ink is hardly dry on the Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice Workbook issued this month and now Independent Sector is seeking to strengthen charities with its StrategicLab Conference in Colorado Springs.

The Principles were not without controversy. It cost the IS and its contributors hundreds of thousands of dollars to turn out. IS president, Diana Aviv, readily acknowledged to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that the implementation of the changes in the Principles could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, there is still some question as to any systemic positive change that has resulted as an outgrowth of the document. Some have concerns about the lack of follow through on the Principles before embarking on other important issues. What is the status of the IS Advisory Committee on Self-Regulation of the Charitable Sector that was an outgrowth of the Principles? What ever happened to self-regulation and taking advantage of well-developed infrastructure currently existing within the sector?

The Principles have had some effect, however. Compromising on its call for self-regulation, the document cried out for government intervention into the sector. As a result, small and medium sized agencies are choking on Internal Revenue Service mandates. Furthermore, IS has called for increased federal government involvement by seeking an agency similar to the Small Business Administration. Obviously the call for such an agency must have been without insight because the SBA is considered to be one of the least respected agencies in the federal government and replete with incompetence.

So here we are at another forum that IS has convened. The StrategicLab meeting is contentious also. The Internet is replete with criticism that there are few Generation Y leaders asked to join in the deliberations. This is similar to the call for more diversity in the development of the Principles. Some then questioned the outcomes given the lack of diversity of viewpoints and now others are suggesting that The StrategicLab is another meeting at which an exclusive group is deliberating on behalf of the entire sector.

Should we be afraid of the consequences or that this is another false start?


Gary R. Snyder is the author of Nonprofits: On the Brink. He is a frequent lecturer and author of articles in numerous publications and blogs. His email is http://gary.r.snyder@gmail.com; website: www.garyrsnyder.com, phone: 248.324.3700.