Catching up: civic tech research, crisis of participation in Brazil, podcasts and more

Posted on December 4, 2017 by Tiago Peixoto

picture by tollwerk on flickr

The dream consultancy

The Hewlett Foundation is seeking consultants to help design a potential, longer-term research collaborative to study the application of behavioral insights to nudge governments to respond to citizen feedback. This is just fantastic and deserves a blog post of its own. Hopefully I will be able to do that before the EOI period ends.

Rise and fall of participatory democracy in Brazil?

In an excellent article for Open Democracy, Thamy Pogrebinschi and Talita Tanscheit ask what happened to citizen participation in Brazil. The authors note that “The two main pillars on which institutional innovations in Brazil had been erected – extensive institutionalization and a strong civil society – have not been enough to prevent a functioning system of social participation being torn to shreds in little more than a year.”

I have been asked for my take on the issue more than once. Personally, I am not surprised, despite all the institutionalization and the strength of civil society. Given the current Brazilian context, I would be surprised if the participatory spaces the article examines (councils and conferences) remained unaffected.

Playing the devil’s advocate, this period of crisis may also be an opportunity to reflect on how policy councils and conferences could innovate themselves. While they extremely important, one hypothesis is that these structures failed to appropriately channel societal concerns and demands that later exploded into a political crisis, leading to the current situation.

Provocations aside, it is just too early to tell whether this is the definitive death of conferences and councils. And my sense is that their future will be contingent upon two key points: i) the direction that Brazilian politics take following the 2018 general election (e.g. progressive x populist/authoritarian), ii) the extent to which councils and conferences can adapt to the growing disintermediation in activism that we observe today.

The Business Model of Civic Tech?

If you are working in the civic tech space, you probably came across a new report commissioned by the Knight Foundation and Rita Allen Foundation, “Scaling Civic Tech: Paths to a Sustainable Future.” As highlighted by Christopher Wilson at the Methodical Snark, while not much in the report is surprising for civic technologists, it does provide the reader with a good understanding of the expectations of funders on the issue of financial sustainability.

When thinking about business models of civic tech efforts, I wonder how much money and energy were devoted to having governments open up their datasets while neglecting the issue of how these governments procure technology. If 10% of those efforts had been dedicated to reforming the way governments procure technology, many of those in the civic tech space would now be less dependent on foundations’ grants (or insights on business models).

Having said this, I am a bit bothered by the debate of business models when it comes to democratic goods. After all, what would happen to elections if they depended on business models (or multiple rounds of foundations’ grants)?

Walking the talk: participatory grant making?

A new report commissioned by the Ford Foundation examines whether the time has come for participatory grant making. The report, authored by Cynthia Gibson, explores the potential use of participatory approaches by foundations, and offers a “starter” framework to inform the dialogue on the subject.

Well-informed by the literature on participatory and deliberative democracy, the report also touches upon the key question of whether philanthropic institutions, given their tax benefits, owe the public a voice in decisions they make. If you are not convinced, this Econtalk podcast with Bob Reich (Stanford) on foundations and philanthropy is rather instructive. There is also a great anecdote in the podcast that illustrates the point for public voice, as described by Reich:

“So, in the final days of creating the Open Society Institute and associated foundations, there was disagreement amongst the staff that Soros had hired about exactly what their program areas, or areas of focus would be. And, to resolve a disagreement, Soros allegedly slammed his fist on the table and said, ‘Well, at the end of the day, it’s my money. We’re going to do it my way.’ And a program officer that he’d hired said, ‘Well, actually Mr. Soros, about 30% or 40% of it would have been the taxpayer’s money. So, I think some other people actually have a say in what you do, here, too.’ And he was fired the next week.”

Democracy podcasts

Talking about podcasts, the Real Democracy Now Podcast is fantastic. It is definitely one of the best things out there for practitioners and scholars working with citizen engagement.

Although broader in terms of the subjects covered, Talking Politics by David Runciman and Catherine Carr is another great option.

Other tips are more than welcome!

And this is brilliant…

(via @oso)

Elinor Ostrom’s Rules for Radicals by Derek Wall (@Anothergreen). https://t.co/oBS4ydUvZp pic.twitter.com/KiceVwo9jw

— Teemu Leinonen (@teemul) December 1, 2017

Other interesting stuff you may have missed

Study analyzing Pew survey data suggests a “gateway effect” where slacktivism by the politically uninterested may lead to greater political activity offline

Seeing the World Through the Other’s Eye: An Online Intervention Reducing Ethnic Prejudice

Smartphone monitoring streamlined information flows and improved inspection rates at public clinics across Punjab (ht @coscrovedent)

The Unintended Effects of Bottom-Up Accountability: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Peru

Literature review: does public reporting in the health sector influence quality, patient and provider’s perspective?

21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction

Posted on May 4, 2017 by Keiva Hummel

The 28-page paper, 21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction, written by Jill Blair and Malka Kopell was commissioned by The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions and published in spring 2015. The paper offers 3 keystones for building an effective and more equitable civic infrastructure: engaging all sectors; enlisting all voices; and creating vertical and horizontal thoroughfares for the exchange of information and practice. Below is an excerpt of the paper, which can be found in full on The Aspen Institute’s FCS’s site here.

From the introduction…

Our existing civic infrastructure was not designed with intention; it evolved over time in an ad hoc fashion and was built, in part, as a result of investments made over time, largely by philanthropy, but also by private and public sector entities. While philanthropy has helped to populate our current civic infrastructure with nonprofit organizations, the public sector has introduced civic infrastructure policies – from public hearings to citizen budget commissions, and the private sector has contributed to civic infrastructure as well by sponsoring everything from volunteer engagement programs to corporate social responsibility efforts.

The investments and contributions have created a set of institutions, organizations, policies and practices upon which society has come to rely to facilitate public engagement in what Alexis de Tocqueville described as “associational life.” This is civic infrastructure, and it is made up of civic platforms of interplay and participation that enable us to connect with one another and to discover, express, and act on our collective community and civic interests.

We are suggesting here that given the myriad ways in which the world has changed and the persistence of the problems our civic infrastructure is intended to address, there is a need not only to revisit that infrastructure but to consciously create an infrastructure capable of meeting the challenges of our times. Our existing civic infrastructure is, in some cases, failing to take advantage of opportunities, in terms of today’s technology, communications and access to information. In other cases, our current system is failing to meet the challenges it was intended to overcome. Some remnants of 20th century civic infrastructure are ineffective and others may be damaging or undermining or compromising our potential for positive social impact.

Purpose
As leading investors in public problem solving across all content and disciplines, we see philanthropy as the primary, but not the sole, audience for this paper. As problem-solving investors, philanthropy historically has been a source of support for many of the institutions and organizations that comprise our civic infrastructure. With that said, the concepts presented here are relevant to all individuals and organizations committed to building a better world — one in which fairness, justice, economic and educational opportunity prevail and where all people are engaged as stakeholders in civic and community life. We offer this concept of intentional civic infrastructure design to provoke broad interest and to spark participation in its further development and realization.

Approach
We set out to explore the nature of and to begin to frame the principles of an intentionally designed civic infrastructure. We conducted conversations with 18 individuals1 and facilitated a number of small group discussions representing a range of philanthropic, nonprofit and private sector organizations. Many of those interviewed are quoted anonymously throughout this paper. We posed questions about designing a 21st century civic infrastructure in small groups gathered to discuss a range of issues, from democratic practice to place-based or neighborhood-based philanthropy. From these discussions and building on our original intention, we have gleaned what we believe are the keystone elements of a 21st century civic infrastructure wherein organizations and relationships are redefined according to what is both needed and possible given the times in which we live. We offer these keystones in a nascent stage, hoping to provoke deeper exploration and exposition. We are convinced that this moment calls for a close look at what is possible, and a closer look at steps we can take to get there.

Goals
It is time to conceive and construct, imagine and then create, a new civic infrastructure that enables full engagement in community and civic life. We must build it to be more robust and to achieve greater impact on the most vexing and troubling issues confronting our communities and the nation at large.

We intend this paper to be the basis for a series of organized conversations during which the keystones will be refined and made practical by examples and by trial and effort. We hope our colleagues in philanthropy and beyond will consider how to apply the keystones to their own portfolios and their ways of doing business in order to consciously cultivate better conditions for 21st century problem solving. As we apply these principles and our new expectations to practice, the nature of 21st century civic infrastructure should become clearer. We will build it as we go; we will recognize it as it manifests along the way. We know this approach may require reimagining, recreating and dismantling organizations and strategies to which we have become accustomed (and perhaps even committed), but that is the nature of building.

This is an excerpt of the paper, which you can find in full here.

About the Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions
The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solution’s mission is to support community collaboration – including collective impact – that enables communities to effectively address their most pressing challenges. The Forum works to accomplish this mission by pursuing four complementary strategies including: 1) building awareness by documenting and lifting up impactful strategies and stories of success; 2) mobilizing stakeholders through knowledge and network development; 3) removing barriers by advocating for effective policy; and 4) catalyzing investment by encouraging funder partnerships.

Follow on Twitter: @AspenFCS

Resource Link: http://aspencommunitysolutions.org/21st-century-civic-infastucture-under-construction/

The Civic Engagement Primer (PACE)

Posted on May 2, 2017 by Keiva Hummel

The resource, The Civic Engagement Primer, from Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) was released April 2017. It was designed to help philanthropies explore fostering civic engagement interests and increase their understanding of the civic engagement field. You can view the primer’s write up from PACE below and check out the primer on PACE’s site here.

From the site…

A new conversation about civic engagement is emerging. At PACE–a network of funders and foundations committed to civic engagement and democracy–we’ve seen the swell in interest and urgency around this work firsthand. Philanthropies are continuing to understand the civic engagement field and the role they can play in its future. We’re getting a lot of questions–things like:

What is civic engagement? How is it defined and what does it look?
How might civic engagement relate to my work?
How do I get started? Who might I learn from about how to do this work?

We don’t have all the answers, but we do have this:

This Civic Engagement Primer–also known as the #PACEprimer–is a resource designed to explore these questions and help philanthropies assess their interest and understanding in civic engagement, and ultimately help them along their journey toward integrating it into their work. This tool is intended for:

Philanthropies thinking about civic engagement for the first time
Philanthropies that are not new to civic engagement, but have yet to invest in it
Philanthropies that are already investing in civic engagement, but seek common language and shared tools

It should take users 20-30 minutes to work through the Civic Engagement Primer. At the end, we hope philanthropies will:

Have a foundational understanding of civic engagement philanthropy
Know if pursuing civic engagement philanthropy might be right for them
Have resources at their fingertips to share with colleagues and explore further

Click here to view PACE’s Civic Engagement Primer. Continue reading →

Progressive Philanthropy Needs to Spur System Change

Posted on May 2, 2016 by David Bollier

On April 19, I delivered a short opening keynote talk at the EDGE Funders Alliance conference in Berkeley, California, on the challenges facing progressive philanthropy in fostering system change. My remarks were based on a longer essay that I wrote for EDGE Funders, "A Just Transition and Progressive Philanthropy," which is re-published below.

The weak reforms enacted after the 2008 financial crisis….the ineffectuality of climate change negotiations over the course of twenty-one years….the social polarization and stark wealth and income inequality of our time. Each represents a deep structural problem that the neoliberal market/state seeks to ignore or only minimally address. As more Americans come to see that the state is often complicit in these problems, and only a reluctant, ineffectual advocate for change, there is a growing realization that seeking change within the system of electoral politics, Washington policy and the “free market” can only yield only piecemeal results, if that. There is a growing belief that “the system is rigged.” People have come to understand that “free trade” treaties, extractivist development, austerity politics and the global finance system chiefly serve an economic elite, not the general good. As cultural critic Douglas Rushkoff has put it, “I’ve given up on fixingthe economy. The economy is not broken. It’s simply unjust.”

Struggle for change within conventional democratic arenas can often be futile, not just because democratic processes are corrupted by money and commercial news media imperatives, but because state bureaucracies and even competitive markets are structurally incapable of addressing many problems. The disappointing Paris climate change agreement (a modest commitment to carbon reductions after a generation of negotiations) suggests the limits of what The System can deliver. As distrust in the state grows, a very pertinent question is where political sovereignty and legitimacy will migrate in the future. Our ineffectual, unresponsive polity may itself be the problem, at least under neoliberal control.

The failures of The System come at the very time that promising new modes of production, governance and social practice are exploding. Twenty years after the World Wide Web went public, it has become clear that decentralized, self-organized initiatives on open networks can often out-perform both the market and state – a reality that threatens some core premises of capitalism.[1] The people developing a new parallel economy – sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity, as in Greece and Spain – are neither politicians, CEOs or credentialed experts. They are ordinary people acting as householders, makers, hackers, permaculturists, citizen-scientists, cooperativists, community foresters, subsistence collectives, social mutualists and commoners: a vast grassroots cohort whose generative activities are not really conveyed by the term “citizen” or “consumer.”

Through network-based cooperation and localized grassroots projects, millions of people around the world are managing all sorts of bottom-up, self-provisioning systems that function independently of conventional markets and state programs (or sometimes in creative hybrids). They are developing new visions of “development” and “progress,” as seen in the buen vivir ethic in Latin America, relocalization movements in the US and Europe, and the FabLabs and makerspaces that are reinventing production for use.

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

Posted on February 12, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The four-page article, From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond, by John Dedrick was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Dedrick reviews the chronology of civil philanthropy, broken down throughout five distinct time periods between 1989 through present day. He discusses how major events during these time periods shaped how organized philanthropy responded and in-turn shaped the theory and practice of citizen-centered politics. Below is an excerpt from the article. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

In 2003, Kettering and the Pew Partnership agreed to convene a series of dialogues that would include both veterans of the civil investing seminars and members of the communities that had worked with the partnership.

These conversations underscored themes from the work of Kettering and the Pew Partnership with communities and helped to clarify and consolidate what had been learned about community resiliency from the civil investing work. Importantly, the dialogues with the Pew Partnership illustrated that strong democratic practice is a central and explicit theme in community problem solving. While the conversations did not transform practices of the philanthropic sector at the time, new approaches to grantmaking that focus on building community as well as rebuilding communities, particularly among public sector and local funders, have emerged. Scott London’s Investing in Public Life provides an insightful analysis of dialogues.

After Hurricane Katrina and the Great Recession (2005-2015)
In late summer 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast. And once again, many in philanthropy asked: “What are our priorities?” Three years later, in 2008, the bottom fell out of the US economy. In the period between these two events, resilience and community capacity became increasingly central themes for grantmakers. The Great Recession has had another effect as well, which was to resurface a set of questions about what philanthropy should be accountable for.

Kettering’s response to these developments has been multi-pronged. On questions of philanthropy’s role in community capacity, KF program officers Debi Witte and Derek Barker began convening meetings with community-based foundations, which led to a series of research collaborations with CFLeads, Philanthropy Northwest, and Grassroots Grantmakers. An occasional paper by Humboldt Area Foundation executive director Peter Pennekamp, Philanthropy and the Regeneration of Community Democracy, was one product from these exchanges. Kettering also worked with Public Agenda on research into accountability, reported in Don’t Count Us Out. Work with Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) resulted in Philanthropy and the Limits of Accountability as well as an article by PACE executive director Chris Gates and KF program officer Brad Rourke in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. And continuing the longstanding practice of working with foundation associations, KF program officer Carolyn Farrow-Garland joined the board of Grassroots Grantmakers, while I was invited to join the PACE board.

Finally, former Kettering board member Daniel Kemmis, who was then serving on the board of Philanthropy Northwest, began organizing exchanges on a range of topics from philanthropy’s role in strengthening community-focused nonprofits to enduring questions about the role of philanthropy in American democracy and its accountability to the public. One product of this work is Kemmis’ working paper, Philanthropy and the Renewal of Democracy: Is It Time to Step Up Our Game?

Summary Findings
What have we learned from this work? Five top-line findings head the list:

-Civil investing is actually investing. It’s philanthropic work that’s aimed at building and strengthening democracy.
-Building a nonprofit infrastructure is not the same as creating civic capacity. These may be related, but they are not the same.
-Investing in the capacities of community to do public work is labor and time intensive. It’s deeply relational and requires a long-term commitment.
-Communications and language are critical, and we don’t have a common language or effective communication strategy for this work.
-Accountability matters, but it’s about much more than metrics.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Dedrick_2015.pdf

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

Posted on February 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

From the article…

Summary Findings
What have we learned from this work? Five top-line findings head the list:

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Dedrick_2015.pdf

NoVo Foundation

Posted on August 18, 2013 by Courtney Breese

NoVo Foundation is dedicated to catalyzing a transformation in global society, moving from a culture of domination to one of equality and partnership. It supports the development of capacities in people—individually and collectively—to help create a caring and balanced world. NoVo envisions a world that operates on the principles of mutual respect, collaboration, and civic participation, thereby reversing the old paradigm predicated on hierarchy, violence, and the subordination of girls and women.

The foundation places a high priority on a compassionate view of the world and on the highest definition of philanthropy — in the roots of the words anthro and philo — “for the love of human beings.” NoVo sees itself as a learning organization and they believe they can be most impactful by being aware of the interconnectedness of all things.

They structure grantmaking around initiatives, rather than by program areas. These initiatives are varied in form, but all reflect NoVo’s commitment to building authentic partnerships with grantees and other funders, and to taking calculated risks.

NoVo initiatives include:

Empowering adolescent girls
Ending violence against girls and women
Advancing social and emotional learning
Promoting local living economies

NoVo was created in 2006 after Warren Buffett pledged to donate 350,000 shares of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock to the foundation.

About Jennifer & Peter Buffett
Jennifer and Peter Buffett are the Co-Chairs of NoVo Foundation; Jennifer also serves as President. Peter Buffett is the youngest son of investor Warren Buffett. Jennifer and Peter have been active philanthropists since 1997. They were named in Barron’s list of top 25 most effective philanthropists in 2009 and 2010.

Learn more about NoVo at www.novofoundation.org/about-us/.

Resource Link: www.novofoundation.org

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Category Archives: philanthropy

Catching up: civic tech research, crisis of participation in Brazil, podcasts and more

21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction

The Civic Engagement Primer (PACE)

Progressive Philanthropy Needs to Spur System Change

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

NoVo Foundation