Tom, I really appreciate you posting this. It articulates something that I've been finding rewarding in my own activities this past year, especially since connecting with other folks wanting to do the same thing here.

You mentioned the possibility that this will spawn a new breed of organizations and tools designed to elevate and celebrate lots and lots of smaller needs and rewards. I see this happening in what Charles Best is doing through Donors Choose. While his model is specific to schools -- inviting teachers to identify small personal needs and projects in four cities where there is a high poverty rate and ratio of at risk kids -- the model he uses is platform independant and highly scalable.

Rather than depending on large gifts from people with wealth, it nurtures the kind of small giving opportunities (and HUGE intrinsic rewards, like the kind you described for the Chicago woman and her $25 donation to a project in Nepal). I can go to a "catalogue" of giving opportunities that fit every possible wallet. I can find "do somethings" that match my own goals and interests and values. I'm a composer, and was thrilled to find a junior composers program that needed assistance. It was terrific to know exactly how my small donation was going to do something special for a group of kids in the Bronx. The icing on the cake was the fact that the gift is reciprocated with a letter and pictures from the teacher and the kids, showing me how my gift was put to work.

I love Charles Best's model, because instead of some anonymous posting of needs, Charles' team authenticates the need, and then assists in everything from finding donors to fund it, the acquisition of equipment and resources at a discounted cost, and the actual delivery of these things to the school that needs them. Authenticity, accountability, and amazing simplicity. I manage my own portfolio of giving opportunities that I'm interested in. If I can't completely fund one of them on my own, I can fund part of it, and even add it to my "wish list" and invite people to make a contribution instead of giving me a present at Christmas or on my birthday. I had incredible fun with this at Christmas, giving a laptop computer to an Alternative to Suspension school in New York instead of giving perfume and candles for teachers' presents, and material gifts to friends.

There's no obligation on my part to do any of these things, but I have given more through this single program than I've given to any other number of organizations combined.

To adapt this model to the kinds of things we might put magnets on here at omidyar.net would be WONDERFUL!

I think there's another good example of what (I think) you're describing above already in play here at omidyar.net. The Mini-Action network has mobilized a number of cool uplift projects with nothing but the time and efforts of community members. People have come together spontaneously around a need, recruited from outside the community when additional talents or resources are required, and managed to do some pretty interesting things quickly and effectively.

There's no formal structure or agreement. Someone shares a need that they're aware of. Folks choose to connect to help with the ones that they feel compelled to help with. There's no leader, no polling, no consensus engines, just good old fashioned roll-up-your-sleeves-and-dig-in. I find people value each other's contributions in real ways. There's no bickering or flaming. The fact that it is centred around a specific form of uplift, rather than money to dispense, or an organization, is what allows people to feel a sense of ownership and trust. It's been the core of the "do something" energy that I'm attracted to here in this community.

Have also started to cultivate a small place where people can stick a magnet on things they wish to invest their own reputation and time in, and invite others to do the same:

http://www.omidyar.net/group/magnets/

Looking forward to hearing more of your own thoughts, Tom, regarding things you might see in play elsewhere within the omiydar.net community that serve as good examples of what you are sharing above.

This seems closely related to the efforts of Global Giving and groups like Heifer that allow you to give livestock or other useable goods at every price range. I'm very attracted to these models that establish philanthropic relationships while building social capital.

Even more than connecting to an activity, I would like to see greater emphasis on connecting PEOPLE.

One piece that can do this is what we call eGratis, a photo acknowledgment letter that shows the helper exactly how their gift was used. Often donations seem to go into a black hole -- no bond is built between the donor and recipient and the gift is quickly forgotten. This would be an easy way to turn a one minute gift into a longterm relationship with a simple photo and personal note.

It would be interesting to take the mini-action/microphilanthropy models already in place here and make them easier to find and more approachable for someone coming to O/Net for the first time.

Microphilanthropy represents an interesting dynamic. Will the community, through greater trust, support the non-profit?

How can we measure non-financial transactions...is the accelerant power of a public service that increases the greater good sufficient to generate momentum? or does the human trait of self-interest then act as the fulcrum for change. It will be interesting to see. We have seen some of these played out in the technology field like a game of <i>GO</i> over the last decade.

What slows down the impact of 'increasing returns' and Utterback's 'dominant design.'

I think this is a great example of the big idea in small clothes.

I have observed myself that if someone can begin to think of himself as a giver rather than a receiver that it is transformational. I have no experience in how this might apply to groups.

One technique I've seen to help foster this is the idea of matching funds where someone matches a small gift 2 for 1 as an example. Then a $10 gift becomes $30 and suddenly the giver feels like she has had a greater impact than she might have otherwise.

Jennifer Evonne said:

This seems closely related to the efforts of Global Giving and groups like Heifer that allow you to give livestock or other useable goods at every price range. I'm very attracted to these models that establish philanthropic relationships while building social capital.

Jennifer, these are both excellent examples! I've also enjoyed using the WorldVision online catalogue to do the same kinds of things you can do through Heifer, as well as contributing to stocking medical clinics with supplies, building schools, wells, and other community projects.

Michael A: One of the benefits of this approach is that it doesn't require financial measurements. Check out Can What Counts be Counted? presented on our workshop at the Santa Fe Institute. People make their own decisions with some "skin" in the game; the network serves as an amplifier to these personal decisions.

Michael M: re: "big idea in small clothes": well, this is a topic that I've been researching for four years now. Its rooted in quite a collection of choas theory, network theory, complex adaptive systems, positive psychology, and appreciative inquiry that's probably pretty scary to most normal folks. I'm trying to package these ideas in a form that folks can understand and work with, so please bear with me. I hope that I've included enough of the basic elements in this posting to at least plant the seed of the idea.

My phrasing was an awkward praising. :)

I can see there is much thought behind it and not a little subtlety.

It takes time before people recognize the value of what they may have previously regarded as weeds.

This is exactly the kind of thread I've been looking for. I'm very new to the site and like so many others have limited time to be involved in unproductive discussions.

I would like to see a list of people's ideas, exactly how I can help (time/money/advice/connections), and have a place to post my ideas as well. The validity of a project doesn't have to be discussed. The willingness to contribute to it by individuals will see it live or die.

I LOVE that this turns the energy from reciever or beggar to empowered giver. You freely give your ideas to the pack to be refined & cared for, and you give freely of yourself (time/money/advice) to the ideas you feel have merit. You don't bother trying to convince someone you are worthy of the big prize.

So I'll be watching the mini-action network and hoping it grows, and maybe someone has an idea how the O/net resources can be incorporated into it.

-Laine

Ted Ernst is someone that I've come to develop a tremendous amount of respect for. I look to his Shovels and Wheelbarrows project as a great example of small things that can be scaled up to create cascades of uplift.

Ted has opened an interesting discourse here on how that happened, and shares some significant thinking on just how scaleable a non-traditional (read: no foundations, no hierarchial command-and-control structures) can be:

http://www.omidyar.net/group/psc/news/27/

Worth exploring, and certainly asking him more questions about.

Your thoughts are so on target. Glad to see this space is developing.

Tom, you seem very close to what we proposed with Global Gifts Network. By creating an open source searchable database for microphilanthropic activities, local or developing projects find supporters around the world to communicate with for the first time as they learn to build in partnership.

We've got a scalable interactive model for person-to-person giving across all boundaries that directly reaches communities most in need of resources.

I am in touch with an OS programmer who can build the infrastructure when our microphilanthropic connections get too big to track manually...perhaps I can get him on O/Net to discuss how to set up very simple solutions to help this little-big idea grow.

(PS - just realized that the workspace doesn't have the graphics included - i'll get those for you soon)

Sue Braiden said:

Tom, I really appreciate you posting this. It articulates something that I've been finding rewarding in my own activities this past year, especially since connecting with other folks wanting to do the same thing here.

You mentioned the possibility that this will spawn a new breed of organizations and tools designed to elevate and celebrate lots and lots of smaller needs and rewards. I see this happening in what Charles Best is doing through Donors Choose. While his model is specific to schools -- inviting teachers to identify small personal needs and projects in four cities where there is a high poverty rate and ratio of at risk kids -- the model he uses is platform independant and highly scalable.

Rather than depending on large gifts from people with wealth, it nurtures the kind of small giving opportunities (and HUGE intrinsic rewards, like the kind you described for the Chicago woman and her $25 donation to a project in Nepal). I can go to a "catalogue" of giving opportunities that fit every possible wallet. I can find "do somethings" that match my own goals and interests and values. I'm a composer, and was thrilled to find a junior composers program that needed assistance. It was terrific to know exactly how my small donation was going to do something special for a group of kids in the Bronx. The icing on the cake was the fact that the gift is reciprocated with a letter and pictures from the teacher and the kids, showing me how my gift was put to work.

I love Charles Best's model, because instead of some anonymous posting of needs, Charles' team authenticates the need, and then assists in everything from finding donors to fund it, the acquisition of equipment and resources at a discounted cost, and the actual delivery of these things to the school that needs them. Authenticity, accountability, and amazing simplicity. I manage my own portfolio of giving opportunities that I'm interested in. If I can't completely fund one of them on my own, I can fund part of it, and even add it to my "wish list" and invite people to make a contribution instead of giving me a present at Christmas or on my birthday. I had incredible fun with this at Christmas, giving a laptop computer to an Alternative to Suspension school in New York instead of giving perfume and candles for teachers' presents, and material gifts to friends.

There's no obligation on my part to do any of these things, but I have given more through this single program than I've given to any other number of organizations combined.

To adapt this model to the kinds of things we might put magnets on here at omidyar.net would be WONDERFUL!

Sue, having read what you said about donorschoose I went to the site with eager anticipation. While I like the idea that teachers identify 'micro' needs and then anyone can choose to be a philanthopist, I was actually quite disappointed with what I found in my first few minutes, and I became discouraged. Do I want to make time to read through proposal after proposal?

First, the teacher's requests were well thought out in terms of being well written; however, the needs identified in my small sampling were really NOT micro, and they were needs that could have been met much more cost effectively with slightly different strategies. Bottomline, I wished there was a place for me to communicate with these teachers about their perceived needs so we could discuss other ways for them to meet these needs short of raising $3400 or $1400. I guess the uplift I wanted to give wasn't money so much as problem solving.

What lessons are here: First, people with their felt need might NOT even know what they really need, in the sense that they may NOT be defining the problem well, and they may not know the most cost effective means to meet their need. (Geez, I sound like a top down administrator, but all I'm really saying is these teachers need consultation about what they wish to do).

Since I'm in education I could evaluate what I was reading; however, people without experience in the field would have more difficulty.

None of this indicates that this isn't a fine example of what Tom is suggesting. I think it is and I think the site is a terrific idea. My point is simply that it takes enormous sophistication+simplicity to be effectively micro.

Tom,

Thanks for all the hard work and sound thinking represented in your summary. It's definitely stretching my understanding of how virtual communities can work, which is exciting and challenging (yes, and scary).

Jennifer, an underscore is missing in your link, so it's broken. I thought I'd offer the link to Global Gifts Network again here so people can get there since it's such a great link!

Hi, Jon. I guess I've seen a different side of Donors Choose. I've actually found a lot of proposals that are indeed micro. I've funded things that require as little as $50, and others that are much higher. One of the things I find most useful when you're looking for a smaller gift to give is the "Gifts Under $300" section that's linked to from the front. There are lots and lots of tiny innovations happening there, everything from musical instruments to sports equipment for special needs kids. I also like the fact that things are categorized so that I can decide to look just for things that fit with what I connect to personally -- like science, or the arts, or math, or some other strand or area of development.

Regarding what you see as the lack of efficacy of some of the vetting process -- perhaps you could send an email to Charles' team and suggest a forum? It might allow people to connect with the teachers to suggest alternatives or even gifts in kind. I've found Charles and the people working for him to be not only approachable but genuinely interested in the things people share with them to help them continue to cultivate the program.

One of the things that I think keeps things accountable, or within a reasonable scope, is the fact that each proposal is first handled by a Donors Choose staff member. Part of their job is to ensure that the needs are valid, and then to find the most cost effective path for procurement. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear some of your thinking on how there might be ways of bridging the gap between needs and resources more effectively.

Cheers :^)

Michael Addicott said:

How can we measure non-financial transactions...is the accelerant power of a public service that increases the greater good sufficient to generate momentum?

These are great questions. I think the first is something that a lot of NPOs truly struggle with. I'd like to understand the second part of your question better. Can you offer an example to help frame it?

For instance, are you asking if a public service like omidyar.net, which is I think intended to increase the greater good, will actually be a place where people can gain traction with activities? You talk about the accelerant power, so in the context of this example (and not assuming it's a good one ;^), would you be asking if omidyar.net's power to accelarate things (quickly condensing people, resources, ideas into a shared space to collaborate) is enough in and of itself to create traction (actually "do" something good instead of just increasing the noise)?

Sorry if I'm missing the point. Hope you might be willing to expand on the thinking a bit.

Thanks, Michael.

Sue Braiden said:

Jennifer, an underscore is missing in your link, so it's broken. I thought I'd offer the link to Global Gifts Network again here so people can get there since it's such a great link!

Thanks for noticing and fixing this. Got to review it. Looks like a virtual incubator for nonprofits. What a fine idea! What is happening in terms of moving the idea forward?

Michael Addicott said:

"How can we measure non-financial transactions...is the accelerant power of a public service that increases the greater good sufficient to generate momentum?"

Per Michael's question, it seems likely that for many people the accelerant power of a public service that increases the greater good is sufficient to generate momentum. Open Source code development is a remarkable example of this, as are numerous church outreach programs. However, it seems likely there are people who like to work for points or stars, and it would make sense to support their need.

Does anyone know how the extrinsic vs. intrinsic reward or status system works in the Open Source Community?

The whole issue of measurement seems to have several sides. Measurement to establish rank of some kind, even if we deny that rank is associated with points after one's name. This measurement is good as it gives the 'public' a sense of the community's view of the individual's history. It can backfire if folks simply work to manipulate their perceived status.

There is also the issue of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Likely we have a better feeling for intrinsic than extrinsic motivations. If extrinsic reward systems are established, will this deminish intrinsic motivations? Likely so for some of us, or many. Perhaps this is simply a shadow side that needs to be worked through.

I see the value of measurement in a large evolving virtual community as having more to do with helping participants to 'know' others online than with motivation, though I'd guess motivation shouldn't be ruled out.

Tom,

You put a lot of time, work and good thought into this. Kudos to you!

Several of the points you make coincide with a project I've started and that Esther is involved in. More on that later, off-network.

For now, a thought on just one point you made:

. "Be self-organizing. Rather than having an authority controlling the allocation scheme, the community would self-organize around a social network model based on reputation."

What I've seen on ON, including the 25k experiment, hardly suggests that this would lead to an intelligent allocation of funds.

wow, so many comments:

• Cash gifts are only one of the activities I envision in the Better World Toolkit. There are many, many other patterns of uplift which have great value but not measured as a financial donation. This would shift the perception of philanthropy from "rich people giving to the poor" to "love of humanity." I would expect that many of the most successful pattern that would emerge would have a bi-directional effect, perhaps even blurring who is the "donor" and who is the "recipient." (A buddy system connection, for example)
• Global Giving, Giving Global, Donors Choose, VolunteerMatch, etc. are all examples of trustees to my way of thinking. Are these folks bringing us meaningful opportunities? Are they acting responsibly with the trust we give them? If yes, they would thrive in this micro philanthropic network. If no, they would whither away. What is critical, though, is transparency. If they take a 15% commision on the value of a donation, that should be visible to all concerned. What's not ok in my book is the current practice of soliciting $30/mo to support a sad-eyed kid somewhere, and then absorbing most of that money in administrative funds. (One former VP of one of the largest promoters of the programs told me that "maybe" $4 of the $28 they were collecting got to the kid.) If micro philanthropy takes off, we could imagine a thriving new business area for serving as aggregators and connectors. This is kind of like the phenomenon that there are more mutual funds than listed stocks... hopefully, we'd see the most effective aggregators and connectors emerge as the most prominent.
• Yes, there is all kinds of potential for abuse in this scheme, and we can expect this to be a continuing issue. With a sufficiently robust network with rich enough connections, however, we can "route around the damage" when a node proves untrustworthy. Trustees in the network recognize that their future activities will be shaped by the trustworthiness of the activities they support. If they see an untrustworthy (or suspicious) node, it is in their own self-interest to improve things. I've had a fair amount of discussion with Dee Hock (founder of Visa, author of "Birth of Chaordic Age") about this - this is akin to the VISA network's self-organizing properties. If a node in the VISA network becomes untrustworthy, they shut down the city's access. If the city doesn't correct the problem, they shut down the country, etc. This has worked very well by a very "thin" management staff in very difficult international situations.

• re: Self-organization and the $25K question: I think that this discussion was asking the wrong question, turning the issue into a political question, and trying to replicate an entire foundation-granting/proposal process. The question was asked as a zero-sum game, (winner's winnings are offset by loser's losses), so that folks were competing against each other. The process was not scalable: imagine trying to scale up the project to a million dollars, with 40 times as many people. It requires ever-increasing energy to make it work. The micro philanthropy idea would show greater vitality and resilience as it grows. By creating the proper initial condiions, fueled by the proper energies, we could create a self-organizing, self-propagating network of uplift, triggering a cascade of uplift.

So, my reframing of the question is, "how do we create a cascade of uplift?"

Tom,

This idea is inspiring, and it resonates with me in different ways. I wonder if you would willing to post this idea in $25k Decision Making Ideas a fragile but promising framework for allocation of the 25K? It seems to me that your idea creates something new for us. I would certainly support it, and your participation in that workspace would count for something.

Thanks Tom, Sue, Jon, and Michael. I was thinking of the systemic impact of this construct, here, and everywhere. We need to align individual interests along with the community, and it seems that Tom presents us with some interesting ways of accomplishing this. Sometimes, small events will emerge and catalyze others. For example, one of the Alzheimer's Centers (UT-Southwestern) which is the only center that studies Native Americans, has started a telemedicine remote monitoring program. This event ties into what we are trying to achieve sociologically and gives strong insight into where public health is going in the future

I like to compare this approach to the shift from minicomputers to microcomputers 20 years ago. The minicomputer industry (Digital, Wang, Prime, Data General) each was a vertically integrated "stovepipe" organization, making their own CPUs, Disks, OS's etc.

The microcomputer industry took over with Intel and AMD doing the CPUs, Dell and Compaq doing the boxes, Microsoft doing the OS, etc, and eventually took over (much to the distress of the micro computer industry).

The non profit world is in a similar situation today. We have 1.4 million non profit "stove pipe" organizations, akin to the minicomputer-era organizational model - and this number is growing rapidly. Everyone is claiming the need for greater "capacity building" - basically reinforcing the stovepipes.

The micro philanthropic approach introduces a new vision of "tipping" the industry to a layered model. Building out an open network of trust and interaction for better world activities would have breath-taking potential for a better world, but would not please those who are thriving in the existing "stovepipe" fundraising/grantmaking environment. so, this has to be a bottom-up grassroots thing, rather than a collaboration with World Bank, Red Cross, and March of Dimes or whatever.

Starting small and experimentally is a great virtue in this case. The smaller the interactions, the lower the risks, and the greater the aggregate value of lessons learned.

If some folks try to help a homeless person and end up feeding his drug habit, well, we've all learned a lesson in our toolkit for future patterns of uplift, rather than "failed" as a project. If they do figure out a way to help an addicted person off the street, then we've learned another notch on our toolkit, too. the important thing is continous feedback with lots of interaction.

In the same way that the size of a forest fire does not depend on the size of the match which lit it, the size of this idea is dependent on the individual energies we ignite and the space we give them to expand into, not the size of the originating experiment.