Data-driven and evidence-based practices present new opportunities for public and social sector leaders to increase impact while reducing inefficiency. But in adopting such approaches, leaders must avoid the temptation to act in a top-down manner. Instead, they should design and implement programs in ways that engage community members directly in the work of social change.
In October 2010, three men Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey; Cory Booker, who was then mayor of Newark, N.J.; and Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook appeared together on The Oprah Winfrey Show to announce an ambitious reform plan for Newark Public Schools. On the show, Zuckerberg pledged a $100 million matching grant to support the goal of making Newark a model for how to turn around a failing school system. This announcement was the first time that most Newark residents heard about the initiative. And that wasn’t an accident.
Christie and Booker had adopted a top-down approach because they thought that the messy work of forging a consensus among local stakeholders might undermine the reform effort. They created an ambitious timeline, installed a board of philanthropists from outside Newark to oversee the initiative, and hired a leader from outside Newark to serve as the city’s superintendent of schools.
The story of school reform in Newark has become a widely cited object lesson in how not to undertake a social change project. Even in the highly charged realm of education reform, the Newark initiative stands out for the high level of tension that it created. Instead of generating excitement among Newark residents about an opportunity to improve results for their kids, the reform plan that emerged from the 2010 announcement sparked a massive public outcry. At public meetings, community members protested vigorously against the plan. In 2014, 77 local ministers pleaded with the governor to drop the initiative because of the toxic environment it had created. The money that Zuckerberg and others contributed to support the reform plan is now gone, and the initiative faces an uncertain future.
“When Booker and Christie decided to do this without the community, that was their biggest mistake,” says Howard Fuller, former superintendent of the Milwaukee Public Schools and a prominent school reform leader. Instead of unifying Newark residents behind a shared goal, the Booker-Christie initiative polarized the city.
Another project launched in Newark in 2010 the Strong Healthy Communities Initiative (SHCI) has had a much less contentious path. Both Booker and Baraka have championed it. Sponsored by Living Cities (a consortium of 22 large foundations and financial institutions that funds urban revitalization projects), SHCI operates with a clear theory of change: To achieve better educational outcomes for children, policymakers and community leaders must address the environmental conditions that help or hinder learning.
Click here for the full article.
The end of fundraising as we’ve known it
Even before the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, racial strife, economic downturn, and political maelstrom, our industry was changing. For many practitioners, we simply sensed that our equilibrium was off and something about our work was uncomfortable and changing. We just haven’t had much time to process or analyse what this is.
But in the past six months, we’ve had plenty of time to think, but before I describe one vision of fundraising, development, and philanthropy beyond 2020, let’s start with the trends that were already in motion before this all began.
Giving fatigue
People are tired of giving. This doesn’t include the intention or desire to give. They are tired of the act of giving the endless solicitations, the poor quality of the solicitations, the unreciprocated gestures of generosity, and the insincerity of the messaging.
Don’t get me wrong. People want to give. People love to give. People need to give. Helping others is ingrained into our DNA.
We hold the door open for others. We do favours. We give charitable gifts. And on occasion, we jump into the water to save another. We are born altruists, and we will die altruists. It is programmed into our evolutionary biology, and we cannot survive without it. By helping others, we’re counting on that in times of personal need, others will help us.
But donors are tired of saying no. They are tired of pledge forms both paper and electronic. They are tired of not knowing the date and amount of their last gift to your organization, and yet, they still give.
How long do you think Amazon.com would last if it ran their online transaction processing like most non-profits? There wouldn’t be a record of a last “purchase,” and there wouldn’t be a need to type in a name, address, and credit card information every single time.
But donors remain irrationally generous. They are simply not having much fun doing it.
Click here for the full article.
Also, remember to follow our updates from NGO Pulse on Twitter and Facebook
We remind you to consider using our NGO Pulse Premium Advertising Service in support of your communication and outreach activities. This highly popular and successful service integrates all SANGONeT's advertising and communication channels into a single suite of services.
Click here for more information
