Paper by Jenni Owen: “Researchers often lament that government decision-makers do not generate or use research evidence. People in government often lament that researchers are not responsive to government’s needs. Yet there is increasing enthusiasm in government, research, and philanthropy sectors for developing, investing in, and sustaining government-research partnerships that focus on government’s use of evidence. There is, however, scant guidance about how to do so. To help fill the gap, this essay addresses (1) Why government-research partnerships matter; (2) Barriers to developing government-research partnerships; (3) Strategies for addressing the barriers; (4) The role of philanthropy in government-research partnerships. The momentum to develop, invest in, and sustain cross-sector partnerships that advance government’s use of evidence is exciting. It is especially encouraging that there are feasible and actionable strategies for doing so…(More)”.
How Philanthropy Can Make Sure Data Is Used to Help — Not Harm
Article by Ryan Merkley: “We are living in an extractive data economy. Every day, people generate a firehose of new data on hundreds of apps and services. These data are often sold by data brokers indiscriminately, embedded into user profiles for ad targeting, and used to train large language models such as Chat GPT. Communities and individuals should benefit from data made by and about them, but they don’t.
That needs to change. A report released last month by the Aspen Institute, where I work, calls on foundations and other donors to lead the way in addressing these disparities and promoting responsible uses of data in their own practices and in the work of grantees. Among other things, it suggests that funders encourage grantees to make sure their data accurately represents the communities they serve and support their efforts to make that data available and accessible to constituents…(More)”.
Missions with Impact: A practical guide to formulating effective missions
Guide by the Bertelsmann Stiftung: “The complex challenges associated with sustainability transitions pose major problems for modern political systems and raise the question of whether new ways of negotiation, decision-making and implementation are needed to address these challenges. For example, given the broad-reaching effects of an issue like climate change on diverse aspects of daily life, policy fields and action areas, conventional solutions are unlikely to prove effective.
Mission orientation proves to be a promising approach for addressing cross-cutting thematic challenges. It involves formulating well-defined “missions” intended to direct innovation, economic activities and societal initiatives toward desired outcomes. These missions aim for transformational change, targeting fundamental shifts that extend beyond the usual political timelines to ensure enduring impact. Across several OECD countries and at the EU level, initiatives embracing a mission-oriented approach are gaining momentum. For instance, the EU’s mission of “100 climate-neutral cities” exemplifies this approach by exploring new pathways to achieve climate neutrality by 2030. Here, stakeholders from diverse sectors can get involved to help generate effective solutions targeting the objective of climate neutrality…(More)”.
Big Bet Bummer
Article by Kevin Starr: “I just got back from Skoll World Forum, the Cannes Festival for those trying to make the world a better place…Amidst the flow of people and ideas, there was one persistent source of turbulence. Literally, within five minutes of my arrival, I was hearing tales of anxiety and exasperation about “Big Bet Philanthropy.” The more people I talked to, the more it felt like the hungover aftermath of a great party: Those who weren’t invited feel left out, while many of those who went are wondering how they’ll get through the day ahead.
When you write startlingly big checks in an atmosphere of chronic scarcity, there are bound to be unintended consequences. Those consequences should guide some iterative party planning on the part of both doers and funders. …big bets bring a whole new level of risk, one borne mostly by the organization. Big bets drive organizations to dramatically accelerate their plans in order to justify a huge (double-your-budget and beyond) infusion of dough. In a funding world that has a tiny number of big bet funders and generally sucks at channeling money to those best able to create change, that puts you at real risk of a momentum and reputation-damaging stall when that big grant runs out…(More)”.
‘Eugenics on steroids’: the toxic and contested legacy of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute
Article by Andrew Anthony: “Two weeks ago it was quietly announced that the Future of Humanity Institute, the renowned multidisciplinary research centre in Oxford, no longer had a future. It shut down without warning on 16 April. Initially there was just a brief statement on its website stating it had closed and that its research may continue elsewhere within and outside the university.
The institute, which was dedicated to studying existential risks to humanity, was founded in 2005 by the Swedish-born philosopher Nick Bostrom and quickly made a name for itself beyond academic circles – particularly in Silicon Valley, where a number of tech billionaires sang its praises and provided financial support.
Bostrom is perhaps best known for his bestselling 2014 book Superintelligence, which warned of the existential dangers of artificial intelligence, but he also gained widespread recognition for his 2003 academic paper “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”. The paper argued that over time humans were likely to develop the ability to make simulations that were indistinguishable from reality, and if this was the case, it was possible that it had already happened and that we are the simulations….
Among the other ideas and movements that have emerged from the FHI are longtermism – the notion that humanity should prioritise the needs of the distant future because it theoretically contains hugely more lives than the present – and effective altruism (EA), a utilitarian approach to maximising global good.
These philosophies, which have intermarried, inspired something of a cult-like following,…
Torres has come to believe that the work of the FHI and its offshoots amounts to what they call a “noxious ideology” and “eugenics on steroids”. They refuse to see Bostrom’s 1996 comments as poorly worded juvenilia, but indicative of a brutal utilitarian view of humanity. Torres notes that six years after the email thread, Bostrom wrote a paper on existential risk that helped launch the longtermist movement, in which he discusses “dysgenic pressures” – dysgenic is the opposite of eugenic. Bostrom wrote:
“Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (‘lover of many offspring’).”…(More)”.
Data as a catalyst for philanthropy
Article by Stefaan Verhulst: “…In what follows, we offer five thoughts on how to advance Data Driven Philanthropy. These are operational strategies, specific steps that philanthropic organisations can take in order to harness the potential of data for the public good. At its broadest level, then, this article is about data stewardship in the 21st century. We seek to define how philanthropic organisations can be responsible custodians of data assets, both theirs and those of society at large. Fulfilling this role of data stewardship is a critical mission for the philanthropic sector and one of the most important roles it can play in helping to ensure that our ongoing process of digital transformation is more fair, inclusive, and aligned with the broader public interest…(More)”.
Data Science, AI and Data Philanthropy in Foundations : On the Path to Maturity
Report by Filippo Candela, Sevda Kilicalp, and Daniel Spiers: “This research explores the data-related initiatives currently undertaken by a pool of foundations from across Europe. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that has investigated the level of data work within philanthropic foundations, even though the rise of data and its importance has increasingly been recognised in the non-profit sector. Given that this is an inaugural piece of research, the study takes an exploratory approach, prioritising a comprehensive survey of data practices foundations are currently implementing or exploring. The goal was to obtain a snapshot of the current level of maturity and commitment of foundations regarding data-related matters…(More)”
Data4Philanthropy
New Resource and Peer-to-Peer Learning Network: “Today’s global challenges have become increasingly complex and interconnected–from a global pandemic to the climate crisis. Solving these complex problems not only require new solutions, they also demand new methods for developing solutions and making decisions. By responsibly analyzing and using data, we can transform our understanding and approach to addressing societal issues and drive impact through our work.
However, many of these data-driven methods have not yet been adopted by the social sector or integrated across the grant-making cycle.
So we asked, how can innovations in data-driven methods and tools from multiple sectors transform decision making within philanthropy & improve the act of grant giving?
DATA4Philanthropy is a peer-to-peer learning network that aims to identify and advance the responsible use and value of data innovations across philanthropic functions.
Philanthropies can learn more about the potential of data for their sector, who to connect with to learn more about data, and how innovations in data-driven methods and tools are increasingly relevant across the stages of strategy to grant making to impact cycles.
The rapid change in both data supply, and now methods can be integrated across the philanthropy, civil society and government decision-making cycles–from developing joint priorities to improving implementation efficacy to evaluating the impact of investments…(More)”
Why Philanthropists Should Become Heretics
Article by Mark Malloch-Brown: “…There is a legitimate role for philanthropy in troubled times, but one that has to reflect them. No longer is it enough for established figures to use foundations and other philanthropies to prop up an existing order. The world of Hoffman or Bundy no longer exists, let alone that of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Today, the sector will find legitimacy only in its ability to help confront the manifold crises in ways others cannot.
In his 2018 book Just Giving, the political scientist Rob Reich brought a skeptical eye to the question of whether foundations have any valid purpose in liberal democracies but concluded that they can indeed be beneficial by fulfilling roles that only they can take on, through their distinctive constitutions. Reich identified two in particular: pluralism (foundations can challenge orthodoxies by pursuing idiosyncratic goals without clear electoral or market rationales) and discovery (foundations can serve as the “risk capital” for democratic societies, experimenting and investing for the long term). Precisely because entities in the philanthropic sector do not answer to voters or shareholders, they can be both radically urgent and radically patient: moving faster than other actors in response to a crisis or opportunity but also possessing far greater staying power, thus the ability to back projects whose success is judged in decades rather than months.
This approach demands that those who were once secular priests—the leaders of the philanthropic sector—abandon their cassocks and accept the mantle of the heretic. Only by challenging the system and agitating on its fringes can they realize their full potential in today’s crisis-bound world…(More)”
We could all learn a bit about democracy from Austrian millionaire Marlene Engelhorn
Article by Seána Glennon: “In the coming week, thousands of households across Austria will receive an invitation to participate in a citizens’ assembly with a unique goal: to determine how to spend the €25 million fortune of a 31-year-old heiress, Marlene Engelhorn, who believes that the system that allowed her to inherit such a vast sum of money (tax free) is deeply flawed.
Austria, like many countries across the world, suffers from a wealth gap: a small percentage of the population controls a disproportionate amount of wealth and attendant power.
Engelhorn is not alone in calling out this unfairness; in the US, where wealth inequality has been rising for decades, a small number of the super-rich are actually pushing for higher taxes to support public services.
The Austrian experiment is somewhat unique, however, in seeking to engage ordinary citizens in directly determining how a substantial fortune should be distributed…(More)”.