thirdplateauimpact

[thirdplateauimpact]

the power of options in international development

In a recent podcast, Professor Chris Blattman argues against the age old “teach a man to fish” sustainable development model—that if you give a man a fish he eats for a day, but if you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. While training, rather than providing, enables the man to continue to fish, Blattman thinks the man should have the ability to choose whether or not he wants to fish in the first place.

As countries develop, their citizens are presented with increasingly more options. In education, the decisions shift from going to school at all to choosing public or private school to choosing a college and major out of thousands of choices. In healthcare, the decisions shift from receiving care at all to choosing care that is convenient, accessible, high quality, and aligned with personal belief systems. In energy, the decisions shift from having lights at all to which types of technology the voltage in your home can support to finding energy sources that do not harm the environment. In a sense, economic development is the pathway towards increased options.

So why then are economic development programs so prescriptive? For example, the Millennium Villages Project prescribes a cocktail of economic development solutions to lift communities out of poverty including interventions in health, education, and infrastructure. Though these programs do increase the quality of life in these villages, they are missing one key component—that these projects, by design, keep people in their villages by not giving them the choice to pursue options elsewhere. If economic development is in fact the pathway towards increased options, the interventions by which to get there should empower beneficiaries to make the best choices for themselves and their families.

The notion of allowing people to pursue the increased options at their disposal as they economically develop makes unconditional cash transfers an intriguing tool. Blattman and others have found that helping people do what they are already doing better, rather than creating entirely new ventures or encouraging them to learn unfamiliar skills, yields better results. While skills are important, Blattman’s findings show that the main barrier to economic development is capital – which is most useful and flexible in the form of cash.

Furthermore, an impact evaluation by Innovations for Poverty Action in Kenya found that families that received cash with no conditions organically increased spending on education, invested in assets, and increased income, consumption, and overall expenditures; they did not use cash transfers to buy ‘temptation goods’, such as alcohol and tobacco, or work fewer hours as a result of receiving the cash.

From 2002 to 2012, the World Bank invested almost $9 billion in 93 skills projects, and openly admits that some did not yield positive outcomes.  What is the opportunity cost of this $9 billion? If you divide it by the 92,370 households in the Millennium Villages Project, each would have received just over $97,400. To put that into context, a Gallup survey in 2012 found the median annual household income in Rwanda to be $1,101. Research shows that if given the cash, these households would have chosen to invest in the things that matter to them most—health, education, and capital, that have the potential to sustain economic development over the long-term without putting funding towards programs or overhead costs.

As more evidence is published that shows positive outcomes of infusing the poor with cash and international development organizations are beginning to doubt the effects of expensive prescriptive programming, giving cash, and with it the freedom of choice, is becoming more attractive.

this post brought to you by team member whitney caruso. 

[thirdplateauimpact]

Facebook launches donate button, but misses the mark...again.

For the past decade I have a been a champion for, early adopter of, and participant in new platforms that disrupt traditional philanthropy and make it easier for anyone with any level of means to support the causes they care about. It's no surprise that when Facebook rolled out its new "Donate" button for nonprofits yesterday, I quickly logged on to see if the hopes and dreams of all nonprofits would finally come true.

My quick assessment, "not so much."

Stories about the donate button started popping up throughout the afternoon onMashable, Fortune, The Next Web and TechCrunch - sites that are not exactly known for having their pulse on the philanthropic community, but it was nice to see them covering the social good space. Unfortunately, a key part of the story went missing. From what I can tell, the much hyped "donate now" button is really nothing more than a click-through to a nonprofit's website.

When Facebook first rolled out a "donate" button on a dozen or so (highly curated) nonprofit pages back in 2013, there was a great deal of excitement and speculation about what this might mean for nonprofits on a broader scale. Would Facebook finally have a seamless integration and allow users to act on their impulses, stay on the site, and donate to causes in the moment? Would organizations be able to build campaigns and mobilize their Facebook fans without ever making them leave the comfort of Facebook?

But here we are, nearly two years later and a link to an organization's site is what one of the most forward-thinking and innovative companies in the world delivers to the nonprofit sector? Take a look for yourself. The example that Facebook used in their announcement was for the ALS Association (of Ice-bucket fame).  But, when you go to the Association's page on Facebook and hit "donate" a pop-up window says, "not endorsed by or affiliated with Facebook" and then prompts the donor to continue to the organization's website. Right now, it doesn't even direct you to the ALS donation page, but rather their homepage. I don't mean to dismiss the seemingly good intentions of Facebook, but sometimes good intentions simply aren't enough. If you think about it, Facebook could actually use this much more strategically for their own business purposes by collecting even more data (and credit card numbers) for transactions made on the site. I don't think anyone is advocating that Facebook collect even more data from us, but countless users purchase and download games and other apps on the site everyday, why shouldn't they be able to just as easily donate?

We know that online giving is on the rise, and I don't see that trend changing anytime soon.  But, the means to donate more efficiently and effectively need to keep pace and companies like Facebook who have the brains and the reach, need to lead the way.

this post by team member kari saratovsky originally appeared on LinkedIn.

[thirdplateauimpact]

it’s not where you come from, but how you think about the world

When I was first introduced to Third Plateau last fall, it was on a computer screen some three-thousand miles away from their San Francisco office. Jonathan Kaufman, one of the firm’s co-founders, led a webinar about the company and opportunities to get involved. I sat in layers behind my desk envious of that sunny Bay Area weather illuminating my screen during what would become the coldest winter in Boston’s history. While the prospect of returning to the West Coast did seem nice, Jonathan spoke with an energy and enthusiasm for the company’s work culture and impact that would be more than enough to spur any of the Welton Academy boys out of their chairs and proclaim “O Captain! My Captain.” It was an impressionable introduction, surely, but now nine months later, there is something else from that webinar that has stuck with me.

It was a moment near the end when someone asked Jonathan if there was a particular type of person Third Plateau was looking for. He mentioned they looked for people across a variety of disciplines and backgrounds – business, government, education, among many others. It didn’t matter where you came from, but the way you thought.

Now this seems like an inconsequential moment to grasp onto, and, indeed, I initially passed it off as nothing. As with any other organization offering consulting services, they would want those with critical thinking and analytic skills. But as I look back on my time with Third Plateau, I realize that although those skills are helpful, Jonathan’s response goes further than just the ability to organize an effective SWOT analysis or articulate recommendations to a client.

No, the ability to be successful in this work, to enjoy it and be effective, comes down to the way you choose to think about the world.

To choose to think that the world truly is a reflection of ourselves. And that we have a responsibility to make it better. To support and improve organizations looking to provide women abroad a voice through journalism, to shelter and empower low-income communities, and to deliver high-quality career opportunities to students simply because doing so is the right thing to do and few others are doing it.

And I think that’s the crutch.

For longer than I would’ve liked, I’ve fallen into the easy trap of only considering the world through my eyes and my needs. Perhaps it’s a function of having spent the past seven years between Los Angeles and Korea and being exposed to pockets of life enamored by the allure of money, fame, and appearance with each and every tech idea they just know will be big, the promise of YouTube jumpstarting a career, or the number of billboards and commercials showcasing the next thing you can do to make yourself a little better. With each passing experience and interaction my perspective became a tad narrower, focused more and more on only sifting through my individual goals and individual pursuits. Me at the center of my own universe.

As a result, the older woman puttering along in the Honda Civic on the one-way street was now inconveniencing me. The teenage cashier getting flustered scanning the code on the back of a milk bottle was making me late. The woman in the dotted blouse bumping into me as she continues down the sidewalk was bothering me. The guy speaking in hushed tones across the aisle on the bus was distracting me from my work.

But my time at Third Plateau has reminded me of the difference between the easy and the good. The difference between automatically staying on this course and becoming more aware, of taking the time to consider that maybe that older woman had experienced a car accident not too long ago and was just now becoming more comfortable behind the wheel. The teenage cashier may have been having his first day on the job. Maybe I was the one in the way of the woman in the blouse and her plea for me to move was blocked out by my headphones, or that the guy on the phone was finding out his girlfriend was breaking up with him.

Social impact means improving the lives of people and that requires making the conscious choice to express a little more empathy, a little more compassion. For me to realize that going through the motions and seeing the world and all the big, wicked problems with my own narrow black and white lens would lead to a path of continued petty frustrations, annoyances, and boredom. To instead widen that lens and view it all in Technicolor and become energized by the opportunities for impact that have been hidden in plain sight and to act on them. To see things like this, I’ve learned, is worth it and is the step needed to go and change the world.

And for that, spending the summer with Third Plateau has been one of the best experiences I’ve had.

this post brought to you by third plateau impact fellow andrew moncada.

photo credit to topich

[thirdplateauimpact]

detroit’s driverless future?

Last month the University of Michigan celebrated the grand opening of Mcity. The UM Mobility Transformation Center (MTC) bills the facility as “the world’s first controlled environment specifically designed to test the potential of connected and automated vehicle technologies.” MTC has set ambitious goals of conducting early stage tests within these confines until ultimately launching thousands of connected and automated vehicles in Ann Arbor by 2021.

This effort moves autonomous vehicles past the whimsy of Google Maps cars and inserts them into practical applications for the general public. As this technology develops, an opportunity to use these vehicles for social benefit resides in a place just down the road from Mcity. That place has been the epicenter of the automotive industry since its inception. A place fighting to recover from a death spiral that toppled a once thriving American metropolis. A place aptly known as the Motor City.

That place is Detroit.

Despite popular depictions in the media, Detroit is not the lawless ghost town many imagine. Thanks to the unstoppable spirit of its citizens and targeted support from well-funded business magnates like QuickenLoans CEO Dan Gilbert, living space in the Downtown and Midtown neighborhoods have nearly hit capacity. The sports culture is as robust as ever, with ongoing investments in stadiums and support infrastructure for the city’s major teams. The city itself has emerged from the first-ever American municipal bankruptcy and rid itself of its Emergency Manager, while the education system marches steadily down the same path.

Nonetheless, Detroit still faces a long road to recovery. Of the myriad challenges facing the city, transportation and connectivity undercut nearly all of these. A severe decline in population and an already limited public transit infrastructure create a recipe that maroons many citizens amidst blocks of blighted homes and abandoned businesses. This isolation prevents adults from easily reaching much needed gainful employment opportunities. It also forces students to prioritize making it home over accessing many school or community based support activities.

This cycle of isolation must be disrupted. In true Detroit fashion, community-based solutions like the Detroit Bus Company have emerged, but the advances in driverless vehicles could really jumpstart the city. Imagine a fleet of these vehicles circulating, either on-demand or in set patterns, ferrying these individuals to their destinations. Working parents can access jobs outside the limits of their neighborhood. Students no longer have to choose between getting after-school tutoring and finding a ride home. No driver also means no safety concerns for vehicle operators in some of the higher crime areas of the city.

Aside from better connecting daily life inside the city, this move could also help reconnect Detroit with an auto industry desperately trying to reinvent itself for the future. Both Ford and GM are sponsors of Mcity, and their continued support once this effort launches could position them for high-impact corporate social responsibility opportunities, not to mention positive PR and branding.

Many components of this plan still require thought. How would the business community respond to a subsidized or completely funded effort that competes with taxis, Uber, and Lyft? Would this move be a stop-gap service until the city is healthy enough to develop traditional public transit, or would this be a model for all future cities? Will the technology actually be on track for a rollout in 6 years?

Whatever the answer to these questions, it is undeniable that Detroit requires large scale investment and innovation in transportation. How poetic would it be if the solution came from futuristic advances to an industry that has been in lock-step with the city’s own rise, fall, and rebirth?

this post brought to you by third plateau impact fellow john mcgowan.

[thirdplateauimpact]

the challenge of consistency: in life and social change

I’m in the process of trying to get back into shape. Consistency in this process is key – making sure you get some exercise every day instead of being derailed by that beer with a friend, or the always tempting allure of the couch and TV. It’s really not easy. But if you can maintain some consistency, good things happen. 

As I was patting myself on the back this morning for making it to the gym, it occurred to me that consistency in another aspect of my life is sometimes lacking. My desire to have a positive impact on the world does not always seem aligned with my behavior. I am afraid of the consequences of climate change, yet I drive an SUV. I want to help protect the environment, yet I get my coffee in disposable to-go cups. I am concerned about the lack of affordable housing and donate money to local homeless shelters, yet I routinely lie to panhandlers about not having any change. While I have my reasons for each, I have to admit that on some level my actions are not consistent with my beliefs. 

None of this makes me a bad person, any more than skipping a workout does. It is simply a reality of our busy, modern, and often scattered lives that we are constantly reprioritizing from day to day, even minute to minute. This sometimes leads us to cut corners in matching our actions with our moral and ideological view of the world, often times without even realizing that we’re doing it. 

And while I don’t believe these inconsistencies make me a bad person, that knowledge doesn’t do anything to stop a nagging feeling of guilt in the back of my mind. I could make a vague resolution to get better about my consistency in the future, but I think there’s a better way to go. 

One of my favorite professors from grad school offered this advice to his public policy students: in our efforts to move policy, through whatever means, we are going to have to decide what we really care about. Moving public policy requires so much effort and persistence that there is simply not enough time in the day nor passion in our lives to be working on multiple major topics. Choose housing, choose the environment, choose poverty – but you can’t do them all.

Real change will only come if we behave with consistency toward our beliefs. But doing so, and holding ourselves accountable on the range of issues that we all think about, is a difficult trick. Like working on improving your basketball or golf shot while keeping in mind all the different tips you’ve heard lately, the cognitive overload is often too much. You feel overwhelmed and simply fall back into bad habits. It is better to work on just one tip, one improvement. Perhaps the strategy to improve our behavior is to dedicate to consistency along just one issue. 

While none of us as individuals will change the world with our personal behavior, it’s also true that improvement is impossible unless we all collectively make some real changes. Particularly for those of us in the social impact sector, showing our peers that consistency in our beliefs and action is important to us, AND that it’s doable is an important part of being leaders. Consistency is not easy. But just like getting into shape, it can eventually lead to good things.

this post brought to you by social impact fellow luke gilroy.

[thirdplateauimpact]

are consultants part of the problem?

Something has been gnawing at me lately.

At Third Plateau we are privileged to sit at the intersection of funders and nonprofits. This vantage point gives us valuable insights into the needs, priorities and motivations of different actors in the social sector.

As anyone who works with nonprofits – particularly on development – can tell you, the one thing every organization wants more than anything else in the world is general operating support. And, in most cases, I think, for good reason: unrestricted funding gives nonprofits the flexibility they need to run their programs and operations as they see fit.

On the donor side of the aisle, a growing set of philanthropic advisors, including Third Plateau, has emerged to help individual funders be more strategic and generous with their philanthropic dollars. Fundamental to this approach is helping donors connect their giving to their deepest values and motivations. This too is for good reason: the more committed someone is to a cause, the more generous they are likely to be. But identifying those values, and shaping strategies around them, often leads funders to want to support (or in some instances start) specific programs, rather than providing more general funding.

And this is where the nonprofit interest in general operating support runs smack into the philanthropic field’s desire to be both more values-driven and strategic. I’m not the first to note the tension between general support and effective, values-driven philanthropy. But what I’m worried about is whether the growing philanthropic advisory field is exacerbating this challenge.

If so, we need to spend some real time grappling with this. I’m not content to just say that project support makes sense in some cases and general operating support in others; that’s not how things are playing out in the real world, where project support is wiping the floor with general support. And of course I’m not suggesting donors should focus on causes they don’t care about. Rather, I think as philanthropic advisors we need to educate donors about the importance of general operating support and to better develop tools, theories, and practices to connect thoughtful, values-driven philanthropy to this most sought-after type of financial support.

Third Plateau does a lot to improve the dynamics between funders and nonprofits, but I think we can all do more to make sure philanthropic advisors are not part of the problem.

this post brought to you by team member mike berkowitz.

[thirdplateauimpact]

when technology, lions, and modern communication intersect

There are very few situations – if any – where I can imagine myself outright rejecting technology. Now I write this not as a tech fanatic gobbling up every new gadget and tool (I made the move to a smartphone only two years ago), but rather as someone who can’t help but be amazed by the incredible things technology can do. The abundance of single-syllable innovations making my life easier is enough to fill up a whiteboard. Zoom with its teleconferencing services. Slack with its focus on reinventing internal communications. Heck, even my current work allows me to help a client create an online platform that connects students with organizations for work-based learning opportunities. I don’t think my appetite for technology will wane. If anything, it may only get bigger as emerging organizations like our own to more-established ones like Tesla continue to play with technology to make a social impact.

But sometimes when you have to love something so much, you also see its shortcomings.

For all technology has done to provide opportunities to bring people together, I’ve become more and more uncomfortable with the way it is able to take actual living, breathing people and reduce them into ideas, arguments, and bulletin board material. Think of the last time you logged into Facebook and saw an acquaintance’s unpopular opinion get broken down and attacked through bite-sized comments that range from the benign to the malignant. Sure, our online friends are able to pass these off no harm done – because they are our friends – but things get truly problematic when our discussions occur in a more public setting, unfiltered, in the company of anonymous voices who can wash their hands of responsibility when events turn ugly.

Perhaps there is no better recent example of this than Walter Palmer.

Last week, news surfaced that Palmer, a dentist and avid hunter from Minnesota, paid for a $50,000 expedition in early July to travel to Zimbabwe and hunt a lion. The group lured out a lion using bait tied to a truck, allowing the dentist to strike the animal with a crossbow. The blow wasn’t fatal, and the expedition crew followed the lion for forty hours until it was eventually shot. Normally, this wouldn’t be much of a story (nearly fifty lions are hunted each year in Zimbabwe), but this one was named Cecil and he belonged to the Hwange National Park.

Global outrage was swift and widespread. Hashtags like #justiceforcecilthelion on Twitter, Facebook posts linked to the latest news and updates, celebrities and presidents on their social media accounts, and comments from late-night hosts on YouTube emerged within the day. An interesting turn came as the week passed and our different devices and unfettered access to information shifted our outrage from Palmer, the Minnesota dentist, to Palmer, the representation of the ills with hunting. The growing number of faces glued, engaged, and talking about this story meant that Palmer was no longer facing public justice for this single event but for all that is wrong with trophy hunting.  

It started with the Yelp page for his dental practice. With just a couple dozen reviews at the beginning of the summer, individuals flooded the page and created accounts to post single-star ratings, write angry reviews in support of Cecil, and upload images of slaughtered animals. Yelp saw an 11 percent increase in traffic during the week and at its highest point, Palmer’s Yelp page for his dental practice had over seven thousand single-star ratings and reviews, before Yelp intervened and removed content for violating Yelp’s terms that all user-generated material had to relate to the services provided by the company.

Palmer’s contact information and personal photos surfaced and made their way from blog to blog. People began leaving threatening voicemails, protesting outside his dental office, and blocking the entrances with stuffed animals and hate signs. His office has since been closed. There seems little reason not to think that Palmer will live the rest of his life as the man who killed Cecil.

Now I’m not writing this because I feel bad for Palmer, because I don’t. I write this because the ability for technology to package and share information, and for us to feel justified in taking that in whichever direction we want is a dangerous impulse to have – one that I’ve made more than I’d like. Because when we start taking the lives of strangers and begin plastering them on the cover of your cause or my cause in all their imperfections, we stop seeing them as people.

And if we’re so quick to react to someone who we know primarily through pixels and words on a screen, what does that mean for the relationships we do have? If working in the social impact space has taught me anything, people are all we’ve got. And as our digital personalities and identities overlap with our physical ones, let us be sure not to forget the human.

this post brought to you by third plateau summer fellow, andrew moncada

photo credit to Brent Stapelkamp

[thirdplateauimpact]

you down with MDGs, yeah, you know me

I started studying international development in 2005, and since that time, the Millennium Development Goals have been a constant pillar upon which to measure development success, and failure. The eight goals, introduced fifteen years ago, were established to help lift people out of extreme poverty, combat disease, and protect the environment. Since that time, they have driven policy and programming for nonprofits and governments alike. Though many argue they come with stark imperfections, the framework has allowed the international development community to work together toward common goals. They’ve provided a catalyst and a forum for discussion among development practitioners, governments, and recipients of services.

Now it’s 2015, the year by which the goals were meant to be achieved. While gauging the success and failure of such bold and audacious goals is difficult, the United Nations recently released highlights of the progress that has been made:

The percentage of individuals in the developing world living in extreme poverty has declined from 50% to 14%, and the middle class has almost tripled.

91% of primary school age children are enrolled in school.

Gender disparity no longer exists systemically in primary, secondary, and tertiary education.

Child mortality has declined by more than half and maternal mortality by 45% worldwide.

New HIV infections have declined by 40%.

91% of the population has improved their source of drinking water.

Development aid has increased by 66%, for a total of $135.2 billion in 2014.

There is no doubt, the goals have pushed the global community to focus its efforts and provided a universal framework within which to work. When the United Nations’ member states meet in September, they will vote to approve the next set of goals to keep the momentum of the MDGs going to 2030—the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The development community is once again ripe with debate about this next framework. Some say they are dreams rather than targets, others argue that 17 goals ‘feels like too many,’ and some challenge setting goals at all after the MDGs were not fully met by their 2015 deadline.

Putting all arguments aside, creating this next set of goals is an important step for the international development community to take. It creates urgency as well as a central rallying point for the development community to work toward.

this post brought to you by team member whitney caruso.

[thirdplateauimpact]

Fundraising or the Free Market?

How do nonprofits raise money? Traditional answers might conjure images of direct appeal mail, fancy black tie galas, or 5K Walks. However, recent years have introduced a trend that is bucking this perception and gaining popularity among many nonprofits. That dark horse is venture philanthropy.

Venture philanthropy puts nonprofits at the intersection of philanthropy and business. Organizations actively put donor dollars into riskier, mission-aligned investment opportunities with the potential for proportionately scaled returns. Trading the traditional approach for a market-based alternative has proven wildly successful for some organizations, while simultaneously forcing a conversation over the ethical concerns it may create.

A recent Washington Post article showcases the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) as a more extreme beneficiary of the potential upsides to this model. Stemming from a desire to accelerate disruptions in cystic fibrosis treatments, CFF directly funded a biotech firm seeking to bring a game-changing drug to market in 1999. Fifteen years and $150 million later, CFF sold its royalty stake in several drugs created by the firm in return for a $3.3 billion windfall.

At first glance, this turn of events would merit celebration. Drugs that treat the root causes of the disease plus a twentyfold increase in revenue? Pack it up, we’re done for the year, right?

On the contrary, this move generated some public backlash, specifically around the six-digit annual price tag of the drugs set by the biotech firm. While a higher valuation of future drug sales would mean a higher CFF payout when selling their royalties, foundation CEO Robert Beall stated foundation leadership had no role in pricing. Furthermore, CFF announced plans to reinvest a portion of these funds in the development of competing drugs to organically drive down the market price.

Unlike traditional fundraising methods, venture philanthropy extends the payback horizon on potential returns from months to years. This simultaneously represents the greatest asset and the greatest liability of this strategy. CFF made their multi-year investment in drug development knowing a solution would not come overnight, or even within a fiscal year. This strategy allowed them to pivot to more proactive program activities. At the same time, it denied donors the instant gratification they often demand from their donations.

Which method should organizations adopt going forward? 

The best development strategies will acknowledge a place for both, each with their own ideal circumstances. If your organization struggles to find mission-aligned investment opportunities that provide something other than increased revenue, venture philanthropy may be best left alone. If donor perception to the new strategy remains your only obstacle, clear messaging of the motivations, risks, and expected results will help generate buy-in and realign your community of supporters accordingly.

Just like the social impact bonds we detailed last week, time and additional case studies are necessary to cement venture philanthropy in best practices or cast it aside as a passing trend. However, as terms like “donor fatigue” and “crowded space” continue to spark debate in development strategies across the industry, this emerging method may very well take the lead in the race for funding to solve society’s greatest challenges.

this post brought to you by third plateau summer fellow, john mcgowan.

[thirdplateauimpact]

mindfulness myths and me

With all of the recent studies and attention on mindfulness and balance in work and in life, this post may be hard for some to fully appreciate. Let’s just agree, that’s OK. First, I want to start off with a few confessions:

Confession one: there are no less than eight windows open on my computer as I feverishly type this post (and at most times).

Confession two: before I finish writing this, I will likely edit a document that’s due to a client in the morning, pay a bill, catch a few minutes of Jimmy Fallon’s opening monologue, and pack my daughter’s lunch for camp tomorrow.

Confession three: I’ve read countless articles on mindfulness in recent months. Really, I have. I’ve even flirted with the idea of incorporating meditation or yoga into my routine. After all, those studies claim that these simple practices will make me a better and more grounded leader, wife, mom, human…

Confession four: Who was I kidding – that’s just not me. I was ready to claim defeat. I was convinced I was broken. I would never find that internal sense of balance that I envy in so many others.

Then something magical happened. I read, When You Care About Everything, It’s Hard to Think About Nothing. It spoke to me in a way that none of the articles on mindfulness and balance ever has. I sat in front of my screen and read the piece from start to finish – without distraction.  And when I finished, I found myself applauding, tweeting out the article, sharing it with my friends – and searching for confetti to throw from the rooftop.

There’s no question it’s hard to quantify the benefits of being a little all over the map.  The “positives” of living this way, are seldom talked about. But they exist. As the article suggests, “They are the disruptors. The divergent thinkers…. the people who come up with something new without intending to. Something new, like the theory that maybe the more distracted people add a kind of value to the world in a way those sitting still can’t.”

For those of you who have already found balance in your life or are on a path toward it, I applaud you. You probably think I’ve gone completely mad. For the rest of you, I’m not suggesting that embracing the chaos doesn’t come without its consequences - it’s important to find outlets that are right for you to relieve stress and maybe even get a little sleep, but I hope my words also bring you some sense of relief. 

As uncomfortable as it can be to have multiple forces pulling us in different directions – for some of us, this is the way we find our balance. It’s not for lack of discipline. It’s not for lack of being present in any particular moment in time. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. It’s the way we are able to fully participate in the world around us. It’s an acceptance that there are a lot of moments in time and sometimes “breadth and variety over total focus and narrow perfection” win out. For me, that recognition has given me my zen.

a version of this post also appears on linkedin and is brought to you by team member kari saratovsky.

[thirdplateauimpact]

social impact bonds - failure or success?

The impact investing world recently got the result of the first U.S. social impact bond (SIB) – and it was either good or bad, depending on how you think about the goals of this innovative financial product. New York City structured a $7.2 million SIB back in 2012 to fund an effort at trying something new to reduce youth recidivism for prisoners at Rikers Island. Here’s how it was supposed to work: 

Goldman Sachs, the investor, loaned New York City $7.2 mil. 

The city directed these funds to a nonprofit called MDRC to implement a cognitive behavioral therapy program that had been effective elsewhere. 

After three years, a third party evaluator would determine if kids in the program reoffended at a lower rate than a control group of prisoners. 

Based on that evaluation, the city would either repay the investor its money, plus a profit, or it would owe nothing if the program had been unsuccessful in meeting its goals. 

Results of the three-year evaluation: the program did not work. There was no difference in the rates of recidivism between those that went through the program and those that did not. Goldman Sachs (and Bloomberg Philanthropies who guaranteed part of the investment) lost all $7.2 million. 

This would seem to scream “big failure!” Investors lost all their money, New York City did not discover a new effective program, and youth offenders did not manage to escape the revolving door of prison. But that’s not how the city or the investors feel. 

"Even though we didn't get the result with the program that we all wanted and hoped for, we now know that definitively, thanks to the social impact bond structure that we put in place," said Jim Anderson of Bloomberg Philanthropies. 

"The social impact bond let us test the program without taxpayer expense," said Kristin Misner-Gutierrez, director of social services for the city's deputy mayor for health and human services. 

These sentiments get at what many believe is the real goal of the social impact bond structure – shifting public policy towards a pay-for-performance mentality. Rather than allowing funding to continue flowing to incumbent programs without knowing whether they actually have an effect, governments would do better by insisting on measurement and proof. 

Partnering with governments represents one of the biggest opportunities for scaling successful interventions and creating positive social change. But for that change to be real, and for governments and taxpayers to be willing to take on the cost, there needs to be a better system of accountability and proof. Pay-for-performance could be that system. 

The SIB structure is but one mechanism for pushing governments in that direction, but it is not the only one. In fact, The Social Impact Bond Lab at Harvard Kennedy School (one of the originators and drivers of the product) is considering a name change to better reflect its underlying goal of pay-for-performance. 

So from this perspective, the Rikers island SIB was successful: It demonstrated the benefits of experimenting with an intervention and measuring outcomes to determine whether or not to continue the program. The intervention failed, but the structure worked just as planned. 

But the failure to return anything to investors raises a question of sustainability. While perhaps someday governments will be so fluent in the use and structuring of pay-for-performance contracts that SIBs will be unnecessary, we are not there yet. Currently, governments still need the enticement of having private money pay upfront costs of launching programs and measuring them. And while investors in these “bonds” understand that they are investing more for impact than for profit, there is probably a limit to their interest in these deals if they continue to go unpaid. Even if pay for performance is the ultimate goal of SIBs, getting to that goal may still require a more traditional definition of success for the product – namely that someone gets paid. 

The number of governments looking to set up SIBs and pay-for-performance contracts right now is exploding, while interest in funding them seems to be keeping pace. The deals have evolved and become more sophisticated since the Rikers Island deal as the industry has grown. But the results to come out in the next few years will likely have a big impact on whether the excitement continues, or whether the social impact world needs to return to the drawing board.

this post brought to you by third plateau summer fellow luke gilroy.

[thirdplateauimpact]

the grand slam of impact

American Pharoah embodied greatness by ending a 37-year drought in winning horseracing’s Triple Crown earlier this summer.

Serena Williams awed us when she won the Serena Slam by rallying through to her Wimbledon victory, and will go into the US Open as the heavy favorite to complete the first tennis Grand Slam since 1988.

Jordan Spieth is currently in Scotland to compete at The Open, trying to capture his third major of the year and have just one step left to become golf’s first-ever Grand Slam winner.

I love each of these story lines more than the next, but it got me thinking: We need a Grand Slam in the social sector.

The CLASSY Awards (USA), the Third Sector Awards (UK), and the HESTA Community Sector Awards (Australia) are a good place to start, but we still have a long way to go.

We need to substantially raise the profile of these types of awards. What the Oscars represent in the movie industry and what the James Beard Awards represent in the culinary world—we need that level of gravitas. To get there, we need to increase awareness, take the awards and winners seriously, and double (or quintuple) down on marketing. Don’t think that’s possible in the social sector? Ever heard of a little award from Norway called the Nobel Peace Prize? (Maybe that should be the fourth leg of our Grand Slam of Impact...) 

If you’re thinking that social impact shouldn’t be competitive, you’re partially right. But, you’re also super, super wrong. One of the biggest hurdles to true social change is raising awareness, which is exactly where these types of awards and competitions excel.  In 15 years, people will still know American Pharoah, Serena Williams, and—if he can pull off two more big wins—Jordan Spieth because they will have the hardware to back up the claims of their greatness.

Can the same be said of your social impact efforts?

this post brought to you by team member jonathan kaufman.

[thirdplateauimpact]

let’s talk about race

For some talking about race in the workplace is as comfortable as jumping in the Pacific on a cold dark winter’s night. As a first generation Latina, not talking about it feels like getting the wind knocked out of me constantly. The “color blind” approach makes me feel invisible and silenced. When race is finally addressed, too often we fall in a trap and walk on eggshells rather than embrace the discomfort and dive into our realities.  

What does talking about race and ethnicity mean for the social impact sector? Well, everything. It means being authentic, realistic, and aware. It means leading the charge and embracing a culture where open dialogue exists not only around race and ethnicity but also for all intersecting identities. If we are in the business of being change agents then shouldn’t we start by examining our own identity and how it impacts the way we interact with one another-- including our clients?

In the workplace, I am often perceived to be an individual but I am more. I am a member of a racially diverse and cultural group that is constantly discriminated against. Inevitably this affects me both personally and professionally.  Whether it’s a presidential candidate making derogatory remarks against Mexicans and immigrants or the recent string of hate crimes and racism affecting the black community-- these actions have deeply impacted my community and me. Yet, when do we actually take the time to have an honest and open dialogue about the stark reality that racism exists? How can we make space to discuss the ways it touches us as well as the communities we are working with?

Truth be told, there is never a “good” or “enough” time to engage an entire organization in a dialogue about race. But we must make it a priority so that we can create a more inclusive work environment for all. I am a proponent of integrating story telling at work. I believe we all have a story that compels others to act and connect. This approach not only encourages inclusivity but it inspires us to be more self-aware through reflection and more open to sharing our authentic selves.

My story is complex; it is the common immigrant story. But what makes it unique are the choices and behaviors I have had the privilege to make on my own. With a little humility and an open mind, we can all stand to learn from each other. What is your story?

this post brought to you by third plateau summer fellow fabiola paz.

[thirdplateauimpact]

How to Solve the Puzzle of Millennial Engagement

This article “How to Solve the Puzzle of Millennial Engagement” originally appeared on Grant Space

For most people, myself included, trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube is laughably impossible. Sure, I can get a few of the colors to line up here or there, but that’s about as far as I get.

But here’s the thing: Rubik’s Cubes are most definitely not impossible. In fact, some people are freakishly good at them. So why can’t I solve them?

Simple: I don’t know the tricks. I keep trying to solve them the same way I solve more traditional puzzles instead of recognizing they’re a different beast altogether.

The same holds true for solving the puzzle of millennial engagement. Organizations continue to try to engage millennials by sticking to the same old strategies they’ve used for 50 years — and then putting it on a Facebook page. But here’s the thing: Millennial engagement is a different beast altogether — and it’s not limited to how technologically savvy you or your organization are willing to be.

Whether solving a Rubik’s Cube or developing a millennial engagement strategy, each requires the recognition that you’re dealing with a new kind of puzzle with its own tricks and quirks. So, what are the tricks for how to solve the millennial engagement puzzle?

At Third Plateau, we spend a lot of our time uncovering these tricks. I’ll share three of the most important, which can apply to millennial employees, volunteers, and donors.

Transparency

Millennials crave openness and access. We (yep, I’m part of that puzzling population) have an inherent distrust of what we can’t see, and we embrace situations that have nothing to hide. We laud open source platforms and largely believe that everyone, everywhere, should have access to everything. Instead of guarding your organizational information or being concerned about how people will react, millennials appreciate transparency and will react best if they are invited into the conversation.

Organization Gut Check: How transparent is your organization?

Do you share with all of your stakeholders the strategic thinking behind your decisions?

Are you open about your organizational mistakes and missteps and the lessons learned?

Co-Creation

Millennials want to build things. We don’t always respond well to being told what to do and how to do it. Rather, we thrive when given a challenge and are empowered to solve it. Instead of thinking about solutions having to come top-down, bring the problem statement to your millennials and ask for their help in creating the solution.

Organization Gut Check: Does your organization create opportunities for co-creation?

Do you support the intrapraneurs within your organization?

Are your volunteers and donors considered thought partners in your work?

Impact Focus

Millennials want to change the world. We are not necessarily motivated by money or power; we are motivated by opportunities to do something meaningful. Whether we are employees, volunteers, or donors, we want to be part of something that actually matters. Instead of engaging millennials by talking about the immediate need, engage them by talking about how the immediate need connects to a larger purpose and impact.

Organization Gut Check: How focused is your organization on impact?

Do all of your stakeholder groups know and understand your logic model and theory of change?

Does your organization have and evaluate impact-focused metrics at every level of your organization?

Solving the puzzle of millennial engagement is not nearly as hard as you might think. You just have to learn the tricks. As for Rubik’s Cubes, you’re on your own.

Want to learn more about solving the millennial engagement puzzle? Join me for the interactive webinar with Foundation Center, "Millennial Engagement: It Ain’t Rocket Science", on July 16, 2:00-3:00 pm ET. Come ready to have your mind blown.

this article originally written by team member jonathan kaufman

[thirdplateauimpact]

Be Nice, It’s Cool

The New York Times consistently runs great pieces on organization culture and business, the most recent of which has generated a lot of discussion. “No Time to Be Nice at Work” analyzes a growing trend of incivility in the workplace and the negative health outcomes and organizational implications that can ensue.

There’s a lot of talk about organizational culture and the importance of articulating norms and expectations around how people should work together. But really, it’s the little stuff that can uplift or break down the environment, and and the responsibility falls primarily on leadership to set the tone.

Our Third Plateau team is really nice (and I’m not just saying that to be nice). We show a genuine interest in one another’s personal lives and work, and I’d argue, it’s the blending of our personal and professional lives that ultimately strengthens our work.  But, sometimes it’s unintentional behaviors that we need to be mindful of: checking email in the middle of a conversation, taking contributions for granted, not saying please or thank you when you’re in a rush or overwhelmed --- all can negatively impact others. And as the NYT article highlighted, employees who are often hurt by these kinds of actions are most often the ones who remain silent.

My friends and I like to say, “Being nice is cool.” It is cool, and it’s also productive. An effective manager is one whom people perceive as genuinely caring about their well-being, who give them the benefit of the doubt, and support them to do their best work.

More and more research points to the value of emotional intelligence. We all make mistakes and most often, it’s unintentional (unless you’re a real jerk, and if that’s the case we can have a longer conversation). But the more self-aware, reflective, and communicative we are, the more we can course-correct.

this post brought to you by team member annie crangle.

(photo credit Matt Brown)

[thirdplateauimpact]

can’t we all just get along?

Earlier this year Third Plateau helped organize a strategy briefing for one of our nonprofit clients that brought together many of its major individual and institutional supporters.

When we asked attendees how often they have a chance to meet other supporters of their grantees, one program officer from a large U.S. foundation noted that while she often gets together with other foundation representatives, this was the first time she had the opportunity to interact with major individual supporters.

I was surprised to learn how infrequently individual and institutional donors talk, and how few relationships exist across these aisles. But as an excellent and timely new article on the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog argues:

For all the growth in cross-sector collaboration over the past decade, one fact remains distressingly true: Individual philanthropists and institutional foundations don’t learn from each other nearly as much as they should.

The authors outline a number of important reasons why individual and institutional donors should become “friends” and then share some practical wisdom about how to work together.

I hope more donors will listen. Despite their different vantage points, individuals and institutions – working together – will be needed in order for philanthropy to help solve our biggest societal challenges.

this post brought to you by team member mike berkowitz

[thirdplateauimpact]

thinking while drinking?

Sitting at the bar at the Park Hyatt overlooking the seemingly endless Tokyo skyline on a recent trip to Japan, I had two important insights about social change. I realize that a hotel bar in an ultra-modern country is an odd place to have a revelation about changing the world, but here’s what struck me:

1. There are a lot of people in the world. On some level we all know this – there was a lot of media coverage when the global population passed 7 billion. But it’s impossible to fathom what this really means or looks like from the limited perspective of our own homes, cities, or countries. In the greater Tokyo area alone there are an astounding 37.8 million people – about 12% of the U.S. population (and larger than the entire population of Canada). Looking out at that skyline, or trying to jam onto a Tokyo subway car, you can’t help but wonder how we can tackle the world’s greatest challenges without solutions that are truly global in scope – taking into account not just our own fields of vision, but people the world over.

2. Cities are the future. So much international development work and debate seems to focus on rural communities, but most people across the globe live in cities, and the trend towards urbanization is projected to continue throughout the century. I wouldn’t argue, of course, that we should ignore the needs of rural populations. But as we seek to tackle global issues like poverty, health, and climate change, we have to recognize that these are increasingly urban challenges – despite the persistent notion that people in developing nations primarily live in pastoral settings.

I’m curious if the Tokyo skyline has this effect on others. No plans to be in Tokyo in the near future? You can catch a glimpse of it in the classic movie Lost in Translation (filmed at the very same Park Hyatt) and let me know!

this post brought to you by team member mike berkowitz.