by: http://flickr.com/photos/farol/

Internet sta cambiando in maniera significativa sia la quantità che la qualità delle risorse per lo sviluppo umano. E lo sta facendo soprattutto attraverso quello che qui ho definito più volte come fundraising 2.0.

Niente di nuovo, credo, per i lettori di Fundraising Now!, ma è interessante rilevare l'approccio dell'ultima ricerca di Keystone, che conferma l'ineludibile tendenza attraverso lo studio comparato di 24 "mercati filantropici online".

I "marketplace" solidali, sono una delle grandi novità di questi anni: piattaforme in grado di incrociare la domanda di tempo, competenze e risorse economiche da parte di micro-imprenditori e organizzazioni non profit che ne hanno bisogno, con l'offerta da parte di aziende e cittadini che ne dispongono.

La ricerca prova ad analizzarli partendo da 4 domande chiave:

> i mercati sono solo un mezzo per offrire aiuti di breve periodo o possono costituire uno strumento per sostenere uno sviluppo sostenibile?

> esistono strumenti per misurare l'impatto degli investimenti effettuati tramite questi mercati filantropoci?

> le opportunità di investimento vengono presentate in modo da creare una larga base di donatori e una relazione di lungo periodo con i donatori?

> come possono influenzare positivamente il modo in cui i vari "costituenti" (investitori, intermediari e beneficiari) dialogano tra loro e apprendono reciprocamente?

La sfida, secondo Keystone, può essere vinta, purché:

> si mettano in condizione i donatori di diventare veri e propri investitori nel cambiamento sociale;

> si mettano in condizione i beneficiari di mostrare i risultati del loro lavoro attraverso report continuativi, credibili, accessibili e coinvolgenti;

> le organizzazioni arricchiscano il modo con cui interagiscono con i loro sostenitori attraverso gli strumenti partecipativi del web 2.0;

> si costruiscano delle vere e proprie comunità virtuali, in grado di costruire relazioni continuative tra persone in grado di cambiare il mondo attorno a idee e cause in cui possano credere;

> unire i donatori e i beneficiari dei progetti, attraverso gli strumenti del web 2.0

Una sfida per cui sembrano pronte soprattutto quelle piattaforme in grado di passare da un approccio neutrale a un approccio "engaged".

Ma cosa significa essere "engaged" per una piattaforma di filantropia online?

Secondo la ricerca di Keystone, significa:

• promuovere e raccomandare attivamente le organizzazioni e i progetti ospitati sulla loro piattaforma;
• effettuare un controllo accurato (la due diligence) sulla qualità del progetto e dell'organizzazione (e soprattutto sul suo impatto economico e sociale), auspicabilmente attraverso visite in loco;
• coinvolgere i beneficiari stessi e gli stakeholder nella valutazione ex ante dei progetti presentati;
• effettuare un controllo ex post attraverso audit interni ed esterni, partner local e controlli sul campo;
• presentare una rendicontazione accurata (ma anche coinvolgente). Punto su cui tra l'altro molti dei "mercati" esaminati risultano poveri di informazioni;
• mettere a disposizione dei vari stakeholder strumenti tipici del web 2.0, come widget, blog, forum per poter dialogare direttamente.

Ma quali sono gli ostacoli?

> innanzitutto individuare degli indicatori di performance più idonei: non sempre una rendicontazione formalmente corretta, l'adempimento di tutte le regole e il rispetto del budget presentato corrispondono infatti a un reale impatto sociale ed economico sul terreno.

Tanto per dare un'idea, questi sono alcuni degli indicatori usciti dalla survey:

● ‘The percentage of funds going to cause rather than overhead’
● ‘The effective and transparent use of your resources to attain in the best way
possible your organisation’s mission’
● ‘Having a positive impact. Changing and/or improving something that would
have been wasted’
● ‘Doing what you say you will, when you say you will. Being accountable.
Providing excellent ‘customer service’ and strong stewardship’
● ‘Doing the best you can with what you have’
● ‘Good treatment of donors and volunteers, effective programs, judicious
resource utilization’
● ‘Efficient use of resources for social impact, according with the mission of the
organisation’
● ‘Achieving measurable mission goals, and doing it cost-effectively. If your goal is
to help low income women get jobs, don't tell me how many you trained, tell
me how many got jobs that increased their incomes. If you can't then your job
is only half-done’

> non ogni tipo di progetto è comparabile a un altro;

> i problemi sociali sono spesso troppo complessi per essere ridotti a degli indicatori di performance;

> i risultati sono spesso raggiunti ormai terminato il processo di donazione/rendicontazione (si pensi agli effetti positivi dei progetti educativi o a molte attività economiche).

Del resto, non è detto che i donatori siano interessati realmente alle performance così come spesso vengono intese dai "project manager".

La ricerca stessa ricorda, infatti, che si dona soprattutto per soddisfare bisogni emozionali:

- innanzitutto perché fa sentire bene (attivando le stesse aree del sistema limbico centrale coinvolte nella produzione di dopamina che vengono attivate da sesso, soldi, droghe e cibo);

• per sedare un senso di colpa;
• per rispondere alla pressione dei pari;
• per motivi spirituali;
• per conformismo sociale;
• per dimostrara uno status;
• per altruismo.

Detto in altri termini, la credibilità dell'intemediario e la sua capacità di rendicontazione spesso e volentieri vengono considerati elementi secondari. Anzi: spesso si continua a donare alla stessa organizzazione pur sapendo che i propri soldi non saranno spesi in maniera efficaci o andranno sprecati.

Come afferma il presidente di DonorChoose:

‘Donors appreciate data as it gives a sense of visibility into the project, for example, the number of students being helped. But what our donors appreciate most is the personal feedback, the hand written letters from the children, the drawings and the glitter falling from the envelope as they open them.’

Insomma, se è vero che le informazioni dettagliate sono spesso rassicuranti, è vero che quasi nessuno le legge e che un donatore in genere preferisce report di poche pagine e ad alto impatto emotivo (con immagini, storie, testimonianze...).

C'è però un altro motivo che disincentiva le organizzazioni alla pubblicazione di indicatori di performance. La paura di perdere donatori. Il mercato del fundraising viene spesso visto come un gioco a somma zero. Si ritiene limitato il numero di donatori e si ritiene che una rendicontazione poco dettagliata o povera possa far perdere donatori a scapito di altre organizzazioni.

Questa paura spesso spinge all'omertà rispetto ai dati. Si dimentica però che il mercato delle donazioni online è ancora una nicchia (circa il 2, 3% del totale, anche se siti come Network for good hanno chiuso l'ultimo anno con 35 milioni di dollari di raccolta) e che c'è un ampio spazio per creare nuove relazioni con i donatori, per educarli e crescere insieme, per posizionarsi, anche attraverso un alto grado di "accountability" come leader e i first moover potrebbero giovarsene.

Le raccomandazioni finali della ricerca mi sembrano particolarmente rilevanti. I siti di filantropia online dovrebbero:

abituare i propri sostenitori a pensare come "investitori sociali" e non più come donatori

creare un sistema di raccolta e certificazione dei dati indipendente, che permetta una comparazione dei dati in diversi mercati e paesi

costruire un sistema di reporting unico e condiviso, che permetta la comparazione dei dati

Per finire, ecco i siti presi in considerazione.

1. Beautiful Foundation: http://www.beautifulfund.org
2. Bring Light http://www.bringlight.com
3. CanadaHelps: http://www.canadahelps.org
4. Changing the Present : http://www.changingthepresent.org
5. Charity Aid Foundation: http://www.cafonline.org
6. Conexion Colombia: http://www.conexioncolombia.com
7. DonorEdge http://www.donoredge.org
8. DonorsChoose: http://www.donorschoose.org
9. eBay Giving Works: http://givingworks.ebay.com
MissionFish: http://www.missionfish.org
10. Give2Asia: http://www.give2asia.org
11. GiveIndia: http://www.giveindia.org
12. GlobalGiving: http://www.globalgiving.com
13. Greater Good South Africa: http://www.myggsa.co.za
14. HelpArgentina: http://www.helpargentina.org
15. Just Give: http://www.justgive.org
16. Justgiving: http://www.justgiving.com
17. Kiva: http://www.kiva.org
18. Microplace: http://www.microplace.com***
19. Modest Needs: http://www.modestneeds.com
20. MyC4: http://www.myc4.com
21. Network for Good: http://www.networkforgood.org
22. Social Stock Exchange: http://www.bovespasocial.com.br
23. South African Social Investment Exchange: http://www.sasix.co.za
24. Wildlife Direct: http://www.wildlifedirect.org

E un elenco di siti di rating:

1. Charity Navigator: http://www.charitynavigator.org
2. Charity Watch: http://www.charitywatch.org
3. Great Nonprofits: http://greatnonprofits.org
4. GuideStar International: http://www.guidestarinternational.org
5. Intelligent Giving: http://www.intelligentgiving.com
6. Wise Giving Alliance: http://www.give.org

Per scaricare il report (100 pagine da leggere con attenzione e mandare a memoria), clicca qui (è un pdf)

Post correlati su Fundraising Now!

>> Scandalose ONG? Il tesoro nascosto della solidarietà

>> Prestiti, non donazioni. La rivoluzione di Kiva corre sul web

>> Donare in modo intelligente si può? Forse sì, grazie a Internet

Above picture source: Living Routes

The holidays are upon us and all of us are busy splurging money on ourselves, buying gifts for our loved and not so loved ones. As the temperature dips outside, we huddle together in our warm and cosy homes with friends and family. Meanwhile, millions go hungry daily and suffer the chills of the winter. Many will never survive this winter. Its easy to look the other way and to believe that it doesnt concern us. But it does.

We donate hundreds and thousands of rupees to religious organisations. But honestly, does God need our money? Does building a new spanking church, mosque, temple do anything positive to the needy? Or does it bestow us with eternal life or are we reserving some place for ourselves in heaven by building some state of the art, mega religious places? The money we put in the religious coffers are only used to line the fat pockets of a corrupt religious head. Who, after eating our own money wants to show us the way to heaven, when his own place is not assured even in hell.

The maid's kids cant go to school cos she cant afford to send them. The kid who works in the neighbourhood mechanic shop/restaurant cant afford a shoe/shirt cos he has an alcoholic father who feeds off his hard earned money. Yes, we can buy one shirt for him/her. We can buy some books for a child who would love to study, but cant. Some kids would even have the resources to go to school, but the school refuses to take them in cos of bureaucratic red tapism. Its where we can step in, by being the guardian and helping the kid join school. Give free tuitions to the needy just twice a week. Volunteer at some old age home or juvenile school near your place.

There are millions of ways in which we can do something. Yes, there are no rewards for these. But the happiness on the face of a kid/old person whom you have helped can really bring warmth to your heart too. Life has indeed been kind to us. We've got lovely families, friends, we had the opportunity to study, we have some good paying jobs, lovely partners in life. Then there are others who have never seen any form of happiness in their lives.

We owe it to the society and the country that has done so much for us. We spend the whole time criticizing the government and the society in general for the apathy all around us. But lets ask ourselves today, what we have done to wipe the tear off one face? Nothing? Its time to do something. Not tomorrow. Today is the day.

I sponsor the education of two kids through a Delhi based organisation called Deepalaya, that works with the children of migrant labour. A few months ago, a small donation to another Hyderabad based organisation, Sahara, helped to pay 6 months fees of a girl in school. I do all these through an a website called Give India. The governing body of the organisation comprises N Vaghul (Chairman - ICICI Bank), Anu Aga (Director, Thermax), Tarun Das (Chief Mentor - CII) among others. Every money that you donate is tracked, made sure that it reaches the intended recipient and you get a feedback on how your money was spent. The accounts of each NGO is verified and audited by independent auditors.

Look around, there are ways and means of doing something. Something that is closer to your home. Something that is closer to your heart. Choose your own calling. Trust me, there is nothing more satisfying in life.

+++

Just before heading to India, I stopped in New York to attend the inaugural celebration of something that may well become an important new institution for charitable giving: The Philanthropy Exchange.

The event was held, fittingly, in the magnificent Board Room of the New York Stock Exchange. The worlds largest marketplace was playing host to an exciting new concept in open market structures: nonprofit organizations seeking donor funding, whether in tiny individual contributions or large program-wide sponsorships, could become “listed” on an exchange.

The idea of a philanthropic exchange is the brainchild of GiveIndia, an organization that has been working for nearly a decade to bring transparency, financial accountability, and best management practices to India’s enormous nonprofit sector. As GiveIndia’s Pawan Mehra explains, “The concept of the exchange will work exactly the same in the charitable context as it does in the stock market. Donors and investors are looking for interesting opportunities, while nonprofit organizations and companies are looking for funding. The exchange allows the parties to find each other. At the same time, nonprofits, like their corporate counterparts, are naturally incentivized to conduct their operations in ways that will attract investment.”

The parallels with the capital markets are quite broad. For example, a wide array of ancillary structures and services may arise to support the exchange. Just as the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates the markets, an umbrella organization may develop to govern the practices of the exchange and to develop standards for nonprofits that wish to be listed. Organizations like Guidestar and others will perform the critical function of analysis and rating. Just as mutual funds aggregate investment dollars for distribution among comp[anies their analysts find attractive, donors could entrust individual charitable decisions to mutual funds that select from exchange-listed organizations.

From a donor perspective, the exchange concept addresses the two principal barriers to giving: ready access to information about a wide variety of nonprofits who are doing interesting work and confidence that their contributions will produce a “good return on investment.”

For reasons I still cannot fathom, I was asked to speak at the NYSE celebration. My own experience in the nonprofit world has always steered wide of anything having to do with money, focusing instead on personal engagement through acts of service. To borrow from the words I penned more than seven years ago when helping to draft the Guiding Principles of CharityFocus:

Money is an indispensable tool of philanthropy; and [I salute] those who give generously to nonprofit organizations. But [I esteem] the commitment entailed in service above all else. Volunteerism is a transforming experience in a way that financial contribution is not. Giving of oneself is both intimately personal and inspirational to others, setting in motion a ripple effect of awareness, compassion, and beneficence that extends far beyond the gift itself.

But if my personal philosophy made me an awkward choice to speak about financial giving, it was nothing compared to the extent to which I was outclassed by the quality of the other speakers in the panel discussion, which was moderated by an old acquaintance, Hari Sreenivasen of ABC News. Arthur Wood represented the stunningly successful Ashoka, which has been finding and investing in the some of world’s most innovative social entrepenuers for more than a quarter century. Judging from the fact that I understood just about nothing that Arthur said, I’m guessing his background is in finance.

The other two panelists were people I’ve wanted to meet for many years. The first, Charles Best, is the CEO of the ground-breaking organization Donor’s Choose, which matches specific needs of public schools and with donors. The program grew from Charles’s own experiences teaching in an alternative public high school in the South Bronx, and has raised more than $7 million for student projects and underfunded curriculum. The second, Dennis Whittle, is the Chairman and CEO of Global Giving, which connects individual and institutional donors to interesting social, economic, and environmental development projects around the world. Because the giving directed through Global Giving is targeted at projects, rather than organizations, donors can see exactly where their money is going. It is no exaggeration to say that Charles and Dennis are among the smartest, most charismatic, most compelling people I have ever met. They are to philanthropic giving what Nipun Mehta is to voluntary service.

In retrospect, I think Pawan put me on the panel so that, sandwiched between Charles and Dennis, I could have the best seat in the house from which to absorb their comments.

To learn more about the Philanthropy Exchange model, GiveIndia has an excellent synopsis on its website.