Category Archives: My New Favorite Thing

Viva la Commons?

Posted on February 22, 2011 by | 3 Comments

One day last fall, I overheard my four-year-old lecturing another child on the idea of the public commons.

Kind of.

This other little boy tried to grab a truck away from Sam in the sandbox in our neighborhood park. “Mine!” he said.

Sam looked a little baffled, glanced briefly at me, and replied, “It’s not yours. And it’s not mine. It’s just…everyone’s.” (The trucks are mostly left there by families that use the park, although a few are purchased by the city for park use.)

Exactly.

I think that the little boy started crying, because he just wanted the truck, but maybe I’ll imagine a different ending to the story today, one that involves communal understandings of property, and shared stewardship, and exaltation of the “we” above the “I”.

One of the sites I’ve been spending some time on lately is On the Commons, described as “a citizens’ network that highlights the importance of the commons in our lives, and promotes innovative commons-based solutions to create a brighter future.”

What’s not to like?

There’s a lot of environmentally-related content, as you might imagine: our communal resources such as water, alternative energies, and green space. But there’s also material related to using wealth in ways that promote the common good, (three cheers for responsible tax policies!), discussions about the Internet as a public good rather than a corporate tool, and the forum organizing project, dedicated to talking together about our common spaces, physical and not, and how to not just preserve but enrich and enlarge them.

I think about the public commons a lot more since I had kids, and not just because we spend a lot of time in that sandbox.

It’s because our common resources, and, more importantly, the mentality to value and share them, are a big part of what we leave to our children, and far more secure than private inheritances we might hope to leave.

And I’m not sure what kind of public commons we’ll have left by the time they’re engaged in debates over how to protect them, or whether the concept will even have real meaning by then. Even today, there are parents who seem confused, on their first visit to the park, that someone has left toys there for the community to use. And others who avoid the public park altogether, because they don’t like the unpredictability that comes with sharing an unmediated public space.

But I believe very strongly in things public: public schools and public places and public utilities.

I believe in them not just for what they provide, but for how they change how we think, about who belongs within the “we”, and where the limits of our personal ownership are drawn.

And I want my kids to have those experiences, including the inevitable tussles when private desires clash with public good. I want them to be people comfortable with commons living, people who prefer public spaces.

And, so, I’ll be On the Commons quite a bit, alongside my fellow citizens, around the world, who believe in public, too.

Join us.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in My New Favorite Thing

Tagged , ,

Get Organizing Training in your Pajamas!

Posted on January 18, 2011 by | Leave a comment

I think that this site was actually launched in mid-December, but, you know, I’ve been on vacation.

Still, it’s a good way to kick off the new year, hitting all of the major resolutions: work smarter, connect with cool people, save money, and, of course, enhance your grassroots organizing skills (or are those just my resolutions?)

The New Organizing Institute’s Toolbox isn’t a complete substitute for dynamic in-person training, where you get a chance to build relationships with organizers working on social justice issues that connect to yours. It’s not designed to be, I don’t think. What it does offer, that’s pretty awesome, is a completely free, very accessible, and quite high-quality training program that you can do totally online, as an introduction to grassroots organizing principles (tell your story, build a strong structure, plan and execute powerful actions), as a refresher, or (and this is the part I like the best) as a train-the-trainer model that you can then use to build the capacity of those with whom you’re working on the ground.

It uses the best of current technology, with videos of trainers conducting presentations and interactive materials, and it’s in the fullest spirit of the exciting transparency movement: everything is downloadable and free and open for sharing.

THAT’s empowering, and it’s welcome.

I spent some time looking through the site and found several pieces valuable to me, even after years of organizing experience. They’re all time-tested and refined from work in the field, which is especially important to me (I cannot sit through another talk about power from people who’ve obviously never been close to it). And they’re still adding content (and accepting submissions, if there are examples from your work that you want to share).

Check it out, and let me know what you think, please, or share your own resources for community organizing. And consider yourself on the way to your 2011 resolutions!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in My New Favorite Thing

Tagged ,

How should we spend our cognitive surplus?

Posted on January 10, 2011 by | 1 Comment

I read all the time.

And, every once in a while, I read something that blows my mind, like the chart in Outliers that details how much of the achievement gap between rich and poorer kids accrues during summer vacation (and how well schools do at closing it, really, during the year).

And this, from Cognitive Surplus:

Americans watch 200 billion hours of television every year (p. 10).

This is not a TV-bashing post. I’m sure that there are some wonderful things on television. The point of the book, and my reflection on it, is simply to point out that watching television has been a default use of one of the greatest expanding resources of our age: free time. And that our use of time, when aggregated as technology now gives us the capability to do, may be key to changing how we approach the challenges that face us.

One of the key pieces in the book comes early, on page 17, as Clay Shirky describes the lessons learned from projects such as Ushahidi (my paraphrases):

  • People want to make the world a better place.
  • They will help when they are invited.
  • Cheap, flexible tools remove many of the barriers to collective action.
  • We can harness this cognitive surplus–the time and brainpower freed up because most of us don’t have to labor all day just to eat–to dramatically improve our lives, and the lives of others.

    Shirky is careful to emphasize that such positive impacts will not automatically flow from the existence of tools that facilitate sharing, connect people to those of like mind, and allow people’s passions an outlet. After all, the same technology that gave us Ushahidi birthed ICanHasCheezburger (disclaimer: my husband’s all-time favorite site). What we need are civic applications of these tools, in order to create real value. Civic sharing, as Shirky defines it, is about really trying to transform society, not just generating a sense of community for participants or even adding some knowledge to the public sphere. We’re going to “get what we celebrate” (p. 176), and so those of us with civic ideas for how to direct this cognitive surplus need to register our desires now, no offense to my husband’s great affinity for ironic traffic signs and email pranks.

    So, picking up on this idea, that we should treat those 200 billion hours a year as a shared resource that can and should be put to work, I plan to use some of my own free time to create a sort of “to-do list” for my fellow Americans, a “honey-do” that might prompt us to turn away from the television and, in the process, realize some of the good life that was supposed to come in this age of leisure. I want to hear from you–what are the best ideas you’ve found for capitalizing on this surplus, and what would you like to see our society collectively tackle in our free time? And, really, 200 billion hours is a lot of time, so if we can carve out just a little bit of it, I agree with Shirky, we could make some really good things happen.

    I want to hear your ideas for how to harness the potential power of this tremendous resource–what are the tools, and the motives, and the opportunities that we need to be developing? How does our culture currently support such collective civic action, and how does it discourage it? On the issues on which you work most closely, how would you use some of your neighbors’ free time to make a real difference (be those your physical neighbors, or those around the world)?

    And, of course, the critical question: how do we make such actions compelling enough to lure people away from Shark Week?

    • → 1 Comment

    Posted in My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged ,

    Why ‘networked nonprofits’ are better advocates

    Posted on December 6, 2010 by | 2 Comments

    Who likes presents?

    First (drumroll, please!), the holidays have arrived at Classroom to Capitol!

    At the end of this week, everyone who has commented on one of The Networked Nonprofit posts will be entered, at random, in a drawing (chosen blindly by my wonderful husband) to win a free copy of the book. I’ll even pay to ship it to you!

    So, read away, leave your thoughts, and get ready for a present! You are all a gift to me!

    What I like best about The Networked Nonprofit, co-written by authors whose own blogs I read regularly, is their clear view of social media as a set of tools to help in our common quest for social change, rather than gadgets to be worshipped in their own right.

    They urge nonprofit practitioners to use social media to change the way we think, not just the way we communicate, and that has me thinking (see–it works!) about how organizations that embrace social media as part of their strategy are more likely to also possess some of the attributes (or, at least, be open to them) that make organizations successful at advocacy, too.

    Some of this is certainly “chicken and the egg”–are organizations already predisposed to hold these ways of looking at the world, and their work, or does engaging their communities via social media bring about these transformations? The answer, I think, is probably some of both, but I’m most interested in the idea that integrating social media into an organization’s repertoire could better position its Board of Directors, executive staff, and entire set of stakeholders to approach advocacy, too.

    There were several points in the book when Kanter and Fine describe, and even sort of define, ‘networked nonprofits’, and it sounds a lot like how I talk about organizations that are advocacy-oriented vs. those that are more in the “band-aid business”.

    Some examples:

  • Simplicity and transparency: I’ve often had nonprofits tell me that they could never take on advocacy because they’re too small, but, in my practice, those smaller, more nimble organizations have a much easier time taking bold stances (even if they don’t have too many resources to put into campaigns) than those with complex structures and complicated hierarchies.
  • Organizational culture that accepts the inevitability of failure and the utility of risk: I know that I have a lot more work to do with an executive when he/she talks to me about a fear that the organization might fail in its advocacy efforts. The reality, of course, is that they absolutely will fail, that advocacy fails much more often than not, and that organizations need to construct campaigns where there will be some victory (in constituents empowered or policymakers enlightened or reputations enhanced) in the midst of failure.
  • Real curiosity and commitment to listening: The best advocates I know are great listeners; they know what policymakers, in particular, are trying to tell them, and they convey a sense of really wanting to understand others’ perspectives, rather than only trying to broadcast their own message.
  • Integrity and reciprocity: Another concern that I hear sometimes, especially from Boards of Directors, is a fear that their organizations will be pulled into “other people’s issues”. Again, the answer is “of course”, but that’s not a bad thing. Kanter and Fine talk about the concept of “karma banking”, which we think of in advocacy as “coalition-building”–if I’m there to support your domestic violence legislation today, you’ll stand with me on restrictive proposals regarding immigrants’ eligibility for social services. And we can trust each other on that.

    Obviously, advocacy and social media don’t correlate 1:1 in the nonprofit world: there are organizations excelling at advocacy through “old-fashioned” grassroots organizing and time-consuming relationship-building with policymakers, and there are organizations that are using social media incredibly effectively, but only to raise money, recruit volunteers, or promote their own work, not to change the policy environment that impacts their constituents.

    Still, there’s enough overlap that it’s making me think a bit differently about how I approach nonprofits on both of these fronts, and about how tackling one could reduce the gap to be hurdled for the other.

    What about your organization? If you’re involved in advocacy but not using social media, what’s holding you back from using these tools? If you’re fully on the Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare bandwagons, but not doing advocacy, why not? And if you’re doing neither, what aspects of your organization do you see as the biggest obstacles?

    • → 2 Comments

    Posted in My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged , ,

    Thankful in 2010

    Posted on November 23, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    As I write this post, giving thanks, just a few weeks after an election in which I found relatively little to cheer, I feel like all of us could use some good thanking, and thankful-being, right about now.

    So, here’s my 2010 thankful list, but I’d like to hear yours, too. What are you thankful for at this moment, as we start to look to 2011, and the uncertainties of what the new year will bring, and as we reflect back on a year of both triumphs and disappointments?

  • A successful example of consumer advocacy: Craigslist cancelled their adult services section this year, under pressure from anti-human trafficking activists who pointed out how the website was used to facilitate the sale of human beings. No, it’s not a complete victory; activists point out that the activity will move to other parts of the Internet, but, still, it’s a company listening to its consumers and taking the right stand. THANKFUL
  • Health care reform: Yes, it’s imperfect and incomplete. And, yes, it’s under attack. But, as I facilitated a strategic planning session for a network of anti-poverty organizations in October, I was struck by the conversation around unmet needs in the area of health, which mostly focused around access to quality, affordable mental and oral health services. I mean, two years ago, we wouldn’t even have gotten around to talking about mental health, because people were going bankrupt all over the place trying to get needed physical health care. Health care reform is a game-changer, and, if we stay in the game long enough, we’ll see that. THANKFUL
  • A Kansas budget agreement that stopped the worst of the cuts: Again, 2011 is going to be long and tough, with a hardline anti-tax legislature and one of the most conservative governors in the country, but 2010 was an example of reasonable policymakers from both parties coming together to make the best out of a bad situation. It reduced the pain for social services and education, and even expanded the state Earned Income Tax Credit at the same time. We’re in a better place heading into next year than we would have been. THANKFUL
  • California federal district court ruling on gay marriage: I really believe that equal rights for gays and lesbians is a major civil rights issue of our time, one on which we’ll look back, a generation from now, with considerable shame and a little confusion (what were people so angry about, anyway?). I don’t trust this Supreme Court as far as I can throw them, but I still don’t see how anyone can read the Equal Protection clause and think gay marriage bans are OK. We’re set up for a decisive battle. THANKFUL.
  • The community of concern that arose in response to Arizona’s ill-conceived, morally nightmarish, repugnant racial profiling law (masquerading as an “anti-illegal immigration” measure): Sometimes, those who oppose human rights do something so audacious that they’re then surprised by the backlash. We saw it in 2006 with the passage of HR4437 (which would have made it a felony to help an undocumented immigrant in any way), and we saw it in Arizona, too. We still have a long way to go to win public support for humane and sensible immigration policies in this country, but seeing political cartoons and late-night talk shows and mainstream politicians disavow the Arizona approach is heartening. Sometimes we come together by standing against a common enemy. THANKFUL
  • Students who have persevered with me through these initial experiments in online learning, and who continue to challenge me to not just learn more but also discover new ways of communicating what I know. I can’t imagine my life without teaching, now. THANKFUL
  • People who help me raise my kids: You know who you are, Miss Beth at our local public library, and Marla the administrative assistant at our School and just about all of our neighbors. I’m thankful for all that you do, to care for kids not your own and, in so doing, to show their Mommy your commitment to the collective endeavor of raising the next generation. Thank you, too, to the lady who makes faces at the twins while we’re waiting in a long checkout line and to the man who holds the door for us. I couldn’t do it without you. THANKFUL
  • The three most amazing kids in the world: I’m thankful when Sam uses “person-first” language (as in, “why would someone without a disability ever park in a spot for someone with a disability?” Why, indeed, Sam.), when he asks me how to say something in Spanish, and when he wants to talk about war. I’m thankful when Ella gets her brother his pajamas when he’s too tired to cope, and when Ben asks for two of everything to give one to his sister. I’m thankful for their smiles and even their demands, which remind me that policy failures and election disappointments are, while important, decidedly not everything. THANKFUL
  • Learning to make good homemade apple pie: I had two pieces on November 2. I’ll be making many more come January. The crust is delicious. THANKFUL
  • People who actually read what used to fill up my brain and spin around in my soul: I’m thankful for readers who ask me questions and give me answers, and who are willing to be companions on this journey towards justice. I am a different person than when I started this blog a year and a half ago, and, for that, I am thankful.

    What are you thankful for?

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary, My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged ,

    The next frontiers for voting rights

    Posted on November 9, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    President Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965

    Amidst rather uniformly dismal election results for those of us committed to a vigorous collective response to the challenges that face us, including the truly concerning recall of judges over disputes of ideology in Iowa (a major blow to the doctrine of judicial impartiality and separation of powers), there was one bright spot:

    Kansas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to strip the legislature of the power to deny Kansas citizens with mental illnesses the right to vote.

    It’s one of those things that I can’t imagine 289,740 people voting against really, but it’s still encouraging that 482,222 voted for it, and especially rewarding to see the grassroots campaign that mental health advocates, including a strong consumer contingent, put together to take advantage of this opportunity to educate the public about mental illness, civil rights, and the importance of equality.

    So, see–something good from November 2, 2010.

    But, especially in the aftermath of Election Day, we’ve got serious work to do, and not just to protect critical policies and continue to push for progressive advances in tax policy, the social safety net, economic recovery, entitlement reform, health care reform, K-12 and higher education and, well, just about every other aspect of American life.

    We’ve also got to make voting rights a top priority.

    We need to expand suffrage, and vigorously defend it, not just because increasing the number of people who can and do vote is a good way to ensure that we’ll be happier with the outcome. We need to prioritize voting rights, too, because it restores the American ideal of an engaged citizenry, and it makes us proud of who we are and what we can do, together.

    Our finest moments have been when we realize that the rights of citizenship are the most secure, and the most honored, when they’re extended broadly and valued deeply.

    On the list that demands our attention:

  • Commitment to easing the process of re-entry for ex-felons, and revisiting the process of even temporarily denying voting rights to those who commit crimes–this is important not just because it expands the right to vote but also because it sends a message to those who are incarcerated: “we don’t want you cut off from the society into which we’ll expect you to successfully reintegrate”
  • Defense against restrictive photo ID requirements–I want to scream every time someone says, “but you even need to show ID to see a movie.” Um, last time I checked, seeing an R-rated movie is NOT a constitutionally-protected right. Voting is. Unless we’re going to provide free, easily available photo identification to all American citizens, with exceptions for those with religious objections to photographs, requiring photo identification to vote is a poll tax, it’s abhorrent, and we can’t stand for this attack on democracy masquerading as concern with (largely invented) “voter fraud”. I almost wrecked my car when I heard about the Obama Administration dropping its legal challenge to Georgia’s voter identification requirements. This could move us back to 1964, and our nation can’t afford that.
  • Aggressive protection of voter privacy and the integrity of the election system–I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t think that the private companies that manufacture voting machines are intent on overtaking our elections. But I am very concerned about two things: first, that there’s enough truth to the threat of that scenario to make some people wary of the election process and, second, that it does represent another example of turning some of our most sacred public functions over to private companies. There are some things that government should just do itself, whether or not it’s the most efficient, because to farm it out just looks bad and, well, running the democratic process is one of those.
  • A constitutional amendment specifically guaranteeing the right to vote–108 democratic nations have this language, while the U.S. and 10 others don’t. Words do matter, and having these words in the U.S. Constitution could provide the legal foundation for challenges to all of the exclusions above, too, setting the stage for a reorientation towards an affirmative right to civic participation that has to be disproven, rather than the effective opposite, which is the status quo.

    It’s time for a national conversation not just about the results of our elections but the process of them: do we want paper ballots again? what about open-source electronic voting technology? should we have mandatory public audits of elections? if so, who should conduct them? how would we engage the public in oversight of elections, and how could this make a difference in how people engage in the acts of democracy? why can’t people register to vote on Election Day?

    Did you see any violations of voting rights this past Election Day? Did your clients vote? If not, why not? What changes to voting laws might facilitate their participation? What are your thoughts about expanding suffrage rights in the next decade?

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary, Events and Calls to Action, My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged , ,

    This time, it’s personal: “Rebooting America”

    Posted on October 18, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    If any of my readers attended the Personal Democracy Forum, just consider me jealous. I’ve added it to my list of “conferences I shall attend when the kids are older and I have a travel budget again.”

    Until then, I’ve consoled myself with Rebooting America, an edited collection of essays about how to use technology to transform government and reinvigorate our electoral process, among other ideas to change the world.

    I certainly don’t pretend to be as expert in how technology can transform our democracy as the diverse set of thinkers and practitioners contributing here, nor (at more than 230 pages) do I want to summarize all of the recommendations.

    Instead, consider this a sort of “greatest hits” list, at least from my perspective–the ideas that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about, and the ones that I believe have the most potential to truly change how we as citizens interface with each other, and with governance (note, not “government”, since several of the essays make a persuasive case that government as we know it may, in fact, be a concept with a limited future), not just putting a slick, “tech” face on the same old patterns.

    As we approach Election Day (another time-honored ritual whose time, I believe, has come–why can’t we vote online over a period of weeks, for example?), I want to hear your most fervent hopes for what tomorrow’s democracy will look like, and your best ideas for how technology can help us get there. How would you “reboot America”?

  • The essays that I highlighted the most all had in common a strong orientation towards participation that goes far beyond voting–a reimagination, in a way, of what it means to be a citizen, and an understanding that voting alone reduces us, really, to consumers choosing between two or more prepackaged products, which is, ultimately, a really narrow understanding of civic engagement. Several contributors talked about the need for “platforms that will actually engage people in effective, sustainable efforts aimed toward identifying our difference and commonalities, and acting together to further our common goal” (Yochai Benkler). Of course, the way the system is constructed today, voting still matters. But citizens who volunteer, work in their local communities, and debate issues will still vote, they’ll just have many alternative ways to express their values, beyond pushing a button. As Marie Wilson states, “true political participation is only achieved when a person’s voice counts as much as his or her vote.” Voting should be the floor of political participation, not the ceiling; as one contributor put it, “in a world where kids can be television stars just by finding a video camera and an Internet connection,” there’s no reason citizens should relegate ourselves to being the “television audience watching along at home” (Aaron Swartz).
  • Working within the world as it is, several of the essays made concrete suggestions on how to improve electoral politics, from having a checkbox on the ballot that asks voters whether they “gave serious consideration to the booklets or websites of several candidates” or inserting short political messages into random YouTube video introductions (Brad Templeton); requiring instant runoff voting as a way to give greater political opportunities to outsider candidates, including women and people of color (Marie Wilson); putting “none-of-the-above” on the ballot or allowing voters to add a comment that explains their votes, in a way that could be aggregated to provide greater insights into the electorate (Micah Sifry); or allowing the online voting I referenced above (Allison Fine). As with many things, we run our elections the way we do largely because we have, for as long as we can remember, and, as with many things, that’s just not a compelling reason to make the rather poor decisions we do about something this important.
  • The final set of themes in my notes from the volume relate to ways to improve governance, a sort of third leg in this democratic stool; if we enhance citizenship by giving people more meaningful ways to engage, and we change the way that people are elected in ways that should make them more representative of and accountable to that engaged citizenry, then we also need to create tools that will help those two groups work together effectively to do the business of governing. These include such ideas as marginalizing the role of the presidency in favor of a tiered council model (Jan Frel and Nicco Mele); creating “radar screens” of issues coming before the local government, with interactive ways for people to provide feedback (Susan Crawford); and crafting a “Delegation for Future Interests”, composed of young people and forward-thinking scientists who would focus on what our current government does very poorly–thinking about future challenges and the future implications of present decisions (Matthew Burton). This last set of ideas is obviously the most difficult. Technology alone can’t shift entrenched power positions or reenvision our framework of governance. But it can give us the tools to make those dreams more possible, and, therefore, give us license to dream them.

    Citizens for whom voting is just one piece of a seamless life of activism and participation, a democracy that facilitates the connections to each other and to a greater purpose that can animate our lives, and a system of governance worthy of our ideals and capable of rising to our challenges…an America to celebrate in the 21st Century.

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Inspiration and Examples, My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged , ,

    THIS is devolution I can live with

    Posted on October 7, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    I stand by my conviction that there are real dangers in the move towards local ‘control’ (read: responsibility) for essential, shared, national functions (public education, welfare, health). There are too many cracks through which people fall, too many chances for parochialism to cloud out the common good, and too many imbalances between the capacities of our local communities to make this trend compatible with a broad vision of social justice.

    Still, I cheered when I came across a press release from my good friends at the National Immigration Law Center about their collaboration with the Progressive States Network to bring together state policymakers committed to progressive policy change (in this case, in the area of immigrant-related policy) across the country.

    As I see them, the goals are primarily three-fold: to counteract the conservative trends cropping up around the nation, to provide real progressive leadership on some of the social challenges of our time (in the hopes that Congress, may indeed, be listening!), and, also, to take advantage of the considerable authority devolved to state governments, in many of the critical aspects of human well-being.

    And, in the “work with what you’ve got” school of policymaking, it’s about as excellent news as I could imagine. I, for one, would love to have my policies made (at any level of government) by people who group their work on immigration under the heading of “valuing families”, and who have an entire initiative focused on the challenges facing working people.

    Make no mistake: the most common kind of devolution is still the “make you think you gained control when what you really lost is money and central accountability” type.

    But these progressive legislators–not just in Massachusetts and Illinois but Nebraska and Arizona, too, and the network supporting them, are out to change that. And that’s the kind of “experimentation and replication” that I could get excited about.

    → Leave a comment

    Posted in My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged , ,

    Glass Pockets–seeing your way to social change funding

    Posted on September 20, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    Back in February, The Foundation Center launched Glass Pockets, an online effort to provide greater transparency to the philanthropic sector. There was quite a bit of discussion about the initiative when it was launched, but, in my conversations with nonprofit folks on the ground, I haven’t found too many who know much about it, or, certainly, are using it in their resource development work.

    So, albeit a bit belatedly, here’s a quick overview of what GlassPockets is, and, most importantly, how it could contribute to a successful strategy for fundraising advocacy dollars from foundations.

    First, what it’s not: a major revolution in the information available about foundations and their activities–Glass Pockets is much more about compiling currently available information in one place, and making it accessible to grantseekers and interested folks in the general public than it is about really reaching into foundations’ secrets to share big new revelations with us.

    Still, there are some tools here that can help to guide us as we’re navigating the foundation world, in search of those critical, unrestricted dollars for our social change work, and they’re especially valuable because most of the Foundation Center’s resources are only available if your organization has a paid subscription or you travel to one of the on-site locations for their database.

    The highlights, and their possible application for advocacy-focused grantseekers:

  • * Detailed case studies about grantmakers’ activities in targeted issue areas, including anti-poverty, climate change, economic crisis, health care, and education. While you may not find a funder here who is a good fit for your organization/grant, these examples may serve as inspiration for funders with whom you do have a relationship, as well as for your own thinking about how you might partner with philanthropy.
  • * Foundation profiles, which, again, are especially valuable if you don’t currently have easy access to Foundation Center resources. While not all foundations have submitted Glass Pockets profiles, and those that have are often not as complete here as they are in the other Foundation Center databases, it’s a good starting place for information about how a foundation invests, in which issue areas, and to what extent.
  • * Reports on trends and breakthroughs in philanthropy which, like the case studies, point to the ‘big picture’ in the funding world, and may provide a good starting point for your conversations with funders about how your work connects to their mission, or how they see that mission changing in the years to come.
  • * Perspectives directly from grantmakers–it seems to me that this section is targeted more directly at a grantmaker audience (peers talking to peers), but the blog links and commentary from those in the philanthropic community, as well as some ‘inside’ information on how foundations work (and give!), do provide some unique information that is difficult to access elsewhere on the web.

    The folks at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy recently had a great piece on the need for Glass Pockets to become more of a two-way conversation, with pressure from the public (including the grant-seeking kind) for the information that we want/need, whether or not foundations are naturally inclined to share it (such as, for example, perhaps some of the public policy priorities of the foundation’s staff, or the foundation’s investment practices?).

    That’s how I’d like to see Glass Pockets develop, so that we bring not only a measure of transparency but also increased engagement and accountability to philanthropy. And, I know just the people to raise those issues effectively–the same nonprofit advocates whose work can be furthered by strategic analysis of the information that foundations themselves are starting to reveal!

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged , , ,