INSP - From the dysfunctional to the strategic?

Event First Plenary Meeting of INSP
Date 20-22 March
Venue Heidelberg, Germany

‘Much of the way philanthropy does its business is dysfunctional. We are like gamblers playing the two-dollar slots in Vegas. We sit straight ahead, holding our little bucket of metal coins. Repeatedly, we drop in small change, hoping for a big pay-off. … We don’t interact with the other players on our left or right. If we did, we wouldn’t learn much anyhow – they’re behaving in just the same way.’[1]

If INSP’s aim is to move from the dysfunctional to the strategic, it seems important to be clear what ‘strategic’ as opposed to other kinds of philanthropy is. Discussions at the plenary meeting in Heidelberg in March suggest that INSP as a network is not yet clear about this.

What is strategic philanthropy?

Much of the discussion seemed to assume that we were working with a clear definition of ‘strategic’. Working Group 2 sees its task as looking at three areas (allocation of staff resources, governance and board practice, and decision-making processes) in terms of their impact on foundation strategy. Working Group 3 is posing the question whether the foundation community rather than individual foundations can contribute a strategic approach.

There seems to be an underlying assumption among many INSP members that strategic philanthropy is linked to social change. David Winder (Synergos Institute) felt that social change and a global perspective were key elements. He also stressed the need to address the underlying causes of poverty, inequality and injustice. ‘Foundation money is often most strategic in fostering social justice and fairness, supporting advocacy,’ said Adele Simmons (adviser to the World Economic Forum). This notion of strategic seems to embrace the notion of comparative advantage, foundations doing what they do best with the relatively very limited amounts of money at their disposal. One participant talked of foundations doing what government and the private sector don’t do, suggesting that what’s ‘left over’ might be a strategic role for foundations. Another talked of looking at the ‘division of labour’ between foundations and other players.

For some ‘strategic’ seems more a matter of professionalization of foundations than social change, but others were clearly unhappy with this ‘functional/managerial’ emphasis – especially if it is largely limited to the professionalization of those foundations represented in the network.

Does all this matter? Can INSP just go ahead and get on with the job or does it need to know what it’s doing it for first? Some felt it was OK to be confused at this stage, while others felt it was crucial to have a clear definition of strategic philanthropy. How can we know what knowledge is relevant if we don’t know what we’re aiming for?

Who is INSP for?

Not knowing who INSP is aiming for is another potential problem. Several participants expressed the need for a ‘better sense of our target audience’. ‘Are we aiming to do something truly global?’ one asked.

This question is inextricably linked to the question of INSP membership. INSP members are drawn almost exclusively from Western Europe and North America, with just five from the rest of the world. Many of those at Heidelberg stressed the need not to limit the focus to OECD countries. How can we have more voices heard from different parts of the world? How can we get feedback from countries not represented? How can we bring in more global perspectives? This question remains to be answered.

Linked to it is the question of whether INSP outputs are for the whole foundation world or mainly for those countries represented in the network. The answer is probably that INSP will primarily benefit those countries represented. But, said Volker Then, ‘with the cooperation of the organizations represented, we may develop deliverables that are relevant to other cultures and other countries.’ These are likely to focus on generic issues such as effectiveness. However, INSP is definitely not ‘a closed shop’. Results will be disseminated through the website, printed publications, conferences, presentations and seminars.

In all of this INSP’s work will be complementary to that of other similar initiatives, eg Council on Foundations affinity groups such as Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) and taskforces initiated by the European Foundation Centre.

In the meantime, these debates notwithstanding, the work will go on. Working Group 1 is probably most clear about its priorities and desired outputs, while Working Group 4 stresses the ‘extraordinary benefit of chaos’ and the ‘democracy of work’ (unlike the other three groups, the group decided against splitting into subgroups), but all four working groups are ready to start.

1 Bertelsmann Foundation President Dr Gunter Thielen quoting Edward Skloot of the Surdna Foundation. He was talking about the background to the formation of INSP as part of his welcome address to the conference dinner.