Fuel for the Field

By Carla I. Javits, REDF President

Sean Stannard-Stockton’s recent blog post suggests government as the ‘take out’ for social innovations pioneered through philanthropic investment. This is a new way of looking at the relationship between philanthropy and government, which has been evolving and changing for decades.

While it is intriguing to consider a rational system of philanthropic investment which tests innovation and is followed by government backing, I would respectfully disagree with the notion that this is likely to occur except in rare cases.

In the 1960’s, many of the largest US foundations worked with government–in fact they often supported programs initiated by government, and pioneered programs that government later adopted in others. For example, anti-poverty programs funded by the Johnson Administration’s “Great Society” in the 1960’s had been initiated by philanthropy and community-based groups. In other cases, such as the early experiments that eventually turned into community development corporations, government initiated the concept and philanthropy experimented with it. Eventually, community development corporations became a backbone of inner city investment — with ongoing support from government, but also from philanthropy, banks and other corporations.

This history is instructive but it is important to note also that times have changed. First, compared to philanthropy, government is more transparent and accountable to a broad public, and would be hard-pressed to be dominated by initiatives developed by less democratic bodies. In the 60’s, government agencies and commissions often came up with the initiatives that philanthropy then came in to support. The seeds of the current foundation reluctance to support government –initiated programs is rooted to some extent in what followed – as the government of the 1970’s began to disinvest in many of these programs, looking to philanthropy to pick up the costs.

Second, there is much more pressure on governments now than in the 1960’s to moderate taxation and spending. At the same time, government is increasingly required to respond to the interests of a polity with a broad array of divergent interests. Thus most innovations that address a particular set of needs – of specific groups of disenfranchised or disadvantaged people for example – are unlikely to obtain all of the support required from government alone.

That said, the opportunities for more collaboration between government, philanthropy, nonprofits and the private sector are greater now than they have been in many years, as symbolized by President Obama’s recent announcement of the appointment of the San Francisco Bay Area’s Sonal Shah to lead the new Office of Social Innovation – charged with forging public-private partnerships to address and solve some of the nation’s most daunting problems. Lessons from history can be informative in building these partnerships effectively. Philanthropy is averse to the unvarnished, rough and tumble advocacy that is central to public process; and government is a blunt instrument for testing out sensitive and subtle differences in practical approaches which can make the difference between success and failure. The interests, stakeholders, incentives, and tools of each sector vary. Some things can be done in concert, some are best done separately. Mutual respect can be cultivated, even in the context of interests that are not always aligned.

The best solutions are likely to require multiple actors participating over long periods of time. Government may indeed be able to act as a ‘take out’ – but only in some cases (the health care example Sean offers is instructive), or for some elements of social innovation. But the likely scenario for long-term success is the difficult dance that engages all of the sectors over time. Sonal Shah has her work cut out.