Aug 10
27
Controversy for the Social Innovation Fund
Recently, I have been reading various articles about the Social Innovation Fund. There has been controversy around the transparency, or lack thereof during the review and selection process. You can read related articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, Nonprofit Quarterly, and Chronicle of Philanthropy.
In Sean Stannard-Stockton’s post in the Chronicle of Philanthropy and reposted on his blog, he advocates that all applications submitted to SIF should be made public. The Social Innovation Fund had assured its applicants that their applications would not be made public. Although now, as a result of the controversy, they are making public the awarded applications with permission from the awardees. Sean is asking those who did not get selected to send into the Chronicle their completed applications. Sean writes, My reasoning for this was not so much about ensuring that the fund played by the appropriate rules as it was about my belief that these applications represent a treasure trove of detailed information about the practices of grant makers providing growth capital. However, the fund decided early not to release the applicants’ proposals.
I am really on the fence about whether or not the full applications should be released. I might be able to go along with making public an overview or summary of the innovative and proven-effective service. I am not so sure that it is necessary to make public and essentially “give away” all the specifics of one’s plan.
In response to one of the posted comments on Sean’s blog, Sean writes, While I get why an applicant might want to “protect” their idea, doing so puts their organization’s priorities above the goal of serving their beneficiaries. I think it is a rationale but morally bankrupt position.
Sean, you seem to be implying that self-preservation is an “organizational priority.” I do not think it is fair to assume that just because someone wants to “protect” their idea means they are not trying to serve their beneficiaries. They likely have a lot of potential beneficiaries who are not benefitting because the organization does not have enough resources to provide for them.
For the sake of discussion, let me propose a scenario. Let’s say, Nonprofit Organization 1 (NPO1) has an innovative and proven-effective program. The only thing holding them back from providing their service to everyone who needs it is lack of funding. Now enter Nonprofit Organization 2 (NPO2). NPO2 is struggling to keep its’ doors open in this incredibly competitive charitable funding arena. NPO2 reads online a very detailed, innovative, proven-effective program and realizes they could provide that service. NPO2 adopts this new program as a way to generate excitement and new donor dollars. NPO2 is successful in securing big money in their area to provide this exact service. Sean might think this is totally fine because, after all, those who need it are getting service. The reality is NPO1 and NPO2 are not exactly the same and do not provide the service or run the organization in the same way.
Let me give you an alternative, and I think better solution. I believe D.C. Central Kitchen is an amazing program. If I want that kind of program in my community because there is a proven need that is not being met, then I should contact D.C. Central Kitchen first about the possibility of starting a program in my area. I should not take D.C. Central Kitchen’s concept, never talk to them, start implementing a similar service and then start competing with them nationally for money.
I am bringing this up and challenging Sean’s position because I think it warrants further discussion. Sean’s bio is impressive, and he is looked to as an expert in field of philanthropy. I am open to having my position challenged and being persuaded to think otherwise. I hope Sean will be open as well.
Now, I ask you, my readers, what do you think?
