From The Green Skeptic Archives: Philanthropy & Environmental Change: Should Social Capital Markets Take Over?

Deep SEA. Photo by Mickey Rosenau

[Note: While on hiatus this week, I'm posting selections from The Green Skeptic Archives. This one was originally posted on 23 October 2007.--SEA]

I'm taking up a friendly challenge here.

Lucy Bernholz, who writes the excellent blog Philanthropy 2173, and I started a blogalog (Did I just coin that term?) between our blogs about the state of philanthropy and environmental change.

It began in response to Lucy's listing of green blogs in the wake of Blog Action Day last Monday, and her noting the lack of discussion of philanthropy on the sites listed (including mine).

My defense stemmed from a concern about philanthropy and its effectiveness as an agent of change in the environmental sphere, which actually was the origin of this blog. I have grown increasingly concerned about the ability of traditional philanthropy to effect lasting change at a pace commensurate with the global challenges we face.

I expressed this concern in my essay for GreenBiz, "Confessions of a Green Skeptic," several years ago about the Earth Charter.

Back then (March 2003), I wrote, "we need to demonstrate how profitable being green can be, and how essential it is to a truly global sustainability. If we can turn the greed motivation to green motivation, effectively turning it on itself, does the means justify the end? Hard to say. But if greed isn't going away anytime soon, we are left with trying to redirect the motivation any way we can. Guilt has worked, but only gets us so far. 'Envy trumps guilt' every time."

This sentiment was influenced by Thomas Friedman's thoughts on the subject expressed in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, that "if conservationists are going to get ahead of the greedy we need to move faster. 'For now, the only way to run as fast as the herd is by riding the herd itself and trying to redirect it,' Friedman writes. 'We need to demonstrate to the herd that being green, being global, and being greedy can go hand in hand.'"

And it was echoed by Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison in their book, The New Economy of Nature, from which I quoted, "the record clearly shows that conservation can't succeed by charity alone. It has a fighting chance, however, with well-designed appeals to self-interest."

Things have changed quite a bit since I wrote that essay -- the world has gotten flatter, green has become the new black, Al Gore won an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, and the herd has started to move to greener pastures.

But a lot hasn't changed. In Philanthropy, as Susan Raymond points out in a two-part piece called "Does Philanthropy Scale?," the "vast majority of American nonprofits are small; 60 percent or more...have less than $100,000 in annual revenue." And, Raymond notes, "the average foundation grant to nonprofits is on the order of $25,000."

Raymond also points out that "the number of nonprofits with $10 million or more in revenue has increased by 73 percent in the last decade," and asks, "when $25,000 is the average grant, is philanthropy the answer to organizational growth? Indeed, is it even relevant as a source of capital?"

I'm going to quote one more thing from Raymond's essay: "The evolution of microfinance teaches that, when what had been a philanthropic initiative matures and proves its worth, alternative capital sources step in and redefine the opportunity. Is achieving scale, then, the clue for philanthropy to either evolve or exit? And, if so, do we need to rethink what we mean by 'philanthropy' for large organizations or proven initiatives in social markets?"

I quote Raymond's piece at length because it corroborates some of my own thinking on this subject. She rightly points out that the biggest advantage of philanthropic capital is its "ability to take significant risk, to seed a promising idea and recognize that all promising ideas can be failures."

So risk tolerance or tolerance for failure, playing on the field of ideas and at the edge of problems "where the probabilities of success are unknown, is the key playing field for philanthropy."

For many ideas, perhaps chief among them those addressing environmental issues, it may be time for other types of capital to be brought to bear. I'm particularly interested in what Raymond describes as "a multiplicity of approaches to organizational finance in the nonprofit sector...for self-reliance, sustainability, and (yes) profit" to come to the stage.

This is not far from what Lucy refers to as "tri-sector solutions," such as the B Corporation she has described or the bond purchase strategy Raymond describes in her piece. (In the latter, Raymond explains, "'Donors' took on the role of guarantor rather than funder, and the resources flowed at levels that donations would never have been able to sustain.")

Elsewhere in the web pages of onPhilanthropy, John Bloom of RSF Social Finance, posits that "social finance holds that the purpose of money and finance is to support human initiative and to foster the evolution of new community."

And, Bloom suggests, social finance recognizes "the human and environmental consequences of economic activities...[and] presents a picture of a healthier sustainable future -- and one that leaves behind the industrialist model of philanthropy..."

I will continue this dialogue here on The Green Skeptic, because I think it is an important one, and part of an ongoing, evolving thought process for me that started over four years ago and which led to this blog. Thanks to Lucy for calling me out about it and fostering this dialogue.

From The Green Skeptic Archives: Roberto Clemente: A Howitzer for an Arm, An Ocean for a Heart

[While I'm on hiatus this week, I thought I'd post some gems from the Green Skeptic Archives. This post originally appeared in December 2005.--SEA]

In an earlier post on John Lennon, I said that he was one of three people who taught me about caring. The other two were my Aunt Gladys Taylor and Roberto Clemente.

It seems appropriate to write about him on this, the 33rd Anniversary of Clemente's tragic death, when he and four others crashed into the Atlantic Ocean while flying relief supplies to Nicaraguan earthquake victims.

"Some right fielders have rifles for arms," said Tim McCarver. Clemente "had a howitzer." He also had an ocean for a heart.

Roberto Clemente was born on 18 August 1934, in Barrio San Anton in Carolina, Puerto Rico. He played baseball in the major leagues from 1955 until 1972, the year of his death, all with the Pittsburgh Pirates.

The first Latino Hall of Famer, Clemente finished his career with a .317 batting average, 440 doubles, 166 triples, 240 home runs, and 1,305 RBI in 2,433 games. He hit exactly 3,000 hits, knocking a double in his very last at-bat. I have a framed photograph of this hit in my house.

I was born in Providence, Rhode Island, and grew up between there and Boston, along the Route 1 Corridor, 45 minutes from anywhere. I am a lifelong Red Sox fan, followed them religiously throughout my life, which encompassed three World Series losses before the 2004 season.

So how did I become a fan of Roberto Clemente, who played his entire career in the National League on a team in a city nearly 600 miles from my hometown?

I'm not sure what it was that first attracted me to number 21. I started reading about him in the peak of his career, maybe it was the writers' adjectives. Late at night, I could pick up a Pittsburgh station on the radio and listen to his feats in the "green fields of the mind."

The old television series "This Week in Baseball," showed me Clemente's "howitzer arm." He easily threw runners out as they tried to stretch a double into a triple, which was always a mistake against Roberto. Curt Gowdy on NBC brought me the All-Star Game and the 1971 World Series against Earl Weaver's Orioles. Clemente batted .414 in that World Series.

However, something else drew me to Clemente. I am part Portuguese on my mother's side, and in southern New England at the time, probably still, this came with a certain sense of insecurity. "Pork'n'cheese," my Scotch-Irish father used to joke; I had the dark olive skin, black hair and dark eyes of a "Portagee" kid.

The ribbing and insults caused me to be ashamed of my Portuguese heritage for a long time. Yet the more I learned about Roberto Clemente's difficulties on and off the field dealing with prejudices against Hispanics and African Americans, the more I felt a kinship with the right fielder.

For one entire summer, I wore only a t-shirt someone (an Aunt or Uncle?) had given me from a trip to Puerto Rico. It bore one of those economic maps displaying what products came from which area, where the big hotels were, and baseball fields. I knew Clemente had played for the Santurce Crabbers, so I circled the city with a pen.

My mother finally had to throw out the t-shirt I had worn it out. I stormed off to my room and wouldn't speak to her for days.

On New Year's Eve 1972, Roberto Clemente boarded a small DC-7 to deliver food, clothing and medicine to victims of a devastating earthquake in Nicaragua. Clemente, who led the Puerto Rican relief effort, and four others died when the four-engine plane, with a questionable past and an overload of cargo, crashed into the Atlantic. This was a major league baseball player, mind you, putting his life on the line to help others. He cared.

I wanted to name my second son Roberto, after my boyhood hero. Their mother didn't think "Roberto Anderson" worked too well, so we went with her suggestion, Walker, after the Walkers Percy and Evans.

One day, after our son Walker was born, I showed him the framed photograph of Roberto's 3,000th hit, which is mounted with two Clemente baseball cards from my childhood and a postcard of his plaque from the Hall.

"I wanted to name you after this guy, one of my heroes," I told him. It was then I looked at the plaque saw that my hero's mother's maiden name was Walker.

An astounding coincidence? My Walker and his twin sister were born on 18 August 2003, which would have been Roberto's 69th birthday.

Roberto Clemente Walker was 38 when he launched his ill-advised relief mission in that DC-7. No one could persuade him not to go. He cared that much.

Earth Day: Red Sox, Green Sox; Old Sox, New Sox

This just in from the Sports Desk of The Green Skeptic (aka boston.com): The Boston Red Sox will sport a special green logo on the left sleeves of their uniforms to mark Earth Day when they play the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim at Fenway Park on Tuesday.

Earth Day plans also include a pre-game presentation of an Environmental Merit Award to the Red Sox by officials from the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Red Sox said.

(The green logo shown at right will be worn only for this game, a Red Sox spokesman said.)

The award recognizes the Sox for environmental initiatives at Fenway, which include the installation of solar powered trash compactors around the park and the installation of solar panels that will soon help heat water at the park, the club said. (The latter is part of $600,000 initiative to increase the city's solar energy output 50-fold by 2015, according to an earlier article in the Globe.)

EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson and John H. Adams, founding director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, are scheduled to take part in a ceremonial first pitch, the Red Sox added.

In September, the Sox, in partnership with the Natural Resources Defense Council, announced a five-year plan to bring green practices to Fenway Park; the plan is scheduled to culminate in 2012 in time for Fenway's 100th anniversary celebration.
(By Chris Reidy, Boston Globe staff)

Microfinance: The 2008 Penn Microfinance Conference in Philadelphia

The Penn Microfinance Club is hosting the Second Annual Microfinance Conference: Global Assets: Local Access today (Friday, April 18th) at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Speakers include Overstocks CEO Patrick Byrne, Sam Daley-Harris (Director of the Microcredit Summit Campaign), Nicola Armacost (founder of Arc Finance), and kiva.org's Matthew Flannery and Premal Shah will be the keynote speakers.

Will try to live blog from the conference or microblog via twitter ("greenskeptic").


(Disclosure: I am on the advisory board of Green Microfinance, LLC, a panelist on "Social Indicators and Sustainability: Environment, Gender, Poverty.")

Global Philanthropy Forum: Live Blogging Continues

Day Two of Global Philanthropy Forum started with stirring, impassioned, and inspirational speech on Human Rights and its many abuses by Kerry Kennedy.

She was kicking off a plenary on the issue with Kenneth Roth from Human Rights Watch, Paul van Zyl, who founded a transitional government consultancy, Sidney Harman of Harman International, and Keith Leisinger from Novartis.

Van Zyl practically put the current administration on notice when he suggested the potential need for a review of the human rights abuses of the past eight years.

Roth spoke mostly about Human Rights successes, until he was challenged by two audience members: one from northeastern India, where the indigenous people are "legal targets," based upon a 1958 law, and the second who asked whether governments should boycott the Beijing Olympics. His answer: they should not go to opening ceremony, but not boycott the games.

But Sid Harman was the most engaging, telling stories about his own journey of ensuring the rights of his employees at Harman's various industries.

Harman's story of the Oliver, TN, autoparts plant and its transformation is worth hearing again. And they've been proactive in addressing domestic violence issues in their company.

Great to have an example of an enlightened leader among captains of industry -- and among more policy oriented activists.

Global Philanthropy Forum: You Call This Live Blogging?

I'm at the Global Philanthropy Forum this week, in Redwood City, and thought I'd try my hand at "Live Blogging," which is a buzz word I keep hearing.

First impressions:

Most international gathering I've seen. Usually, the ratio of Americans to Other Countries is pretty out of whack. Not here.

Also, plenty of representation from developing countries, which is a refreshing sign.

And a great showing of next generation reps, which explains why I am writing this now.

I wanted to be in the session on "Web-based, purpose-driven social networking." It was packed to the rafters. (Obviously a trend worth watching.)

Finally, there are the "Celebractivists" like Desmond Tutu, Peter Gabriel, and Annie Lennox.

Okay, more later.

Aspen Environment Forum: My Three Take-Aways

Many years ago, someone offered me a piece of advice when I was suffering from information overload at a conference: don't try to absorb or act on everything; just make sure to write down your "3 Take-Aways" before you leave.

This approach has worked out pretty well for me over the years, and last week I dispatched this piece of advice to a young participant of this year's Aspen Environment Forum.

Then I took my own advice. So, here are my 3 Take-Aways from the Forum:

1. There is much to be done and we need all energy options (and plenty of patience) to make progress and ensure prosperity.

2. There are plenty of solutions and plenty of opportunities, but the window to act is now (especially regarding energy efficiency, alternative energy technology, and along the value chain).

3. The New Green Economy needs to be inclusive, especially mobilizing training and redeployment opportunities for disadvantaged and poor people in stressed communities -- to move from pollution and prison culture to solution and social uplift environmentalism.

That seems like a lot, but really one flows to the next. We can do this if we just get our butts in gear. What are we waiting for?

And, I don't remember who you were, but if you're out there, thanks for the good advice!

Social Entrpreneurs: NY Times' David Brooks on Why Social Entrepreneurs Matter

David Brooks has an Op-ed in today's New York Times on social entrepreneurs. He points to why this emerging approach, which mixes venture capital with doing good, is important and argues for investment in the sector.

Worth a look: http://tinyurl.com/3crxjz


(Disclosure: The author of this blog is a vice president with Ashoka; Brooks mentions Ashoka and several Ashoka Fellows)

Social Entrepreneurs: Bill Gates Talk on "Creative Capitalism" at Davos

Readers of The Green Skeptic know that I believe in the concept of market-based social change or doing good and making money; what Muhammad Yunus is now calling "social business" and what Bill Gates spoke about at Davos this week, "Creative Capitalism." Here is the video of Bill Gates from Davos:

Microfinance: Muhammad Yunus on The Colbert Report

Mohammad Yunus gets the Colbert treatment, while promoting his new book, Creating a World Without Poverty. He was a good sport...

Philanthropy 2.0: America's Giving Challenge

The Case Foundation and Parade Magazine has launched America’s Giving Challenge and will award $500,000 to nonprofits whose supporters attract the most unique donors to their cause using new and innovative online tools.

To "champion a cause" you must be a legal U.S. resident aged 13 years or older, using a valid credit card or other form of payment accepted by donation processing partners Network for Good and GlobalGiving.

There are two ways to participate:

Champion a Cause and have the chance to get $50,000 for the charity of your choice. The eight individuals whose charity badges attract the most unique donors through the America’s Giving Challenge will get $50,000 for their cause.

Give to a Cause and help the charity you care about get $1,000. The 100 nonprofits with the greatest number of unique donations made to them through America’s Giving Challenge will each get $1,000.

The Challenge will close January 31 at 3pm EST.

Check out the video one of GlobalGiving's staffers posted on YouTube:



Very cool stuff. And just in time for the holiday season you last minute shoppers!

(Disclosure: My longtime pal, Lee Kravitz, was editor of Parade when this partnership was begun. He has since left the magazine.)

Social Entrepreneurs: Barack Obama Calls for Social Sector Investment

In a speech last week in Iowa, presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama, called for a new focus on social entrepreneurs as agents for positive change, and for increased investment in the social sector:

"The second thing I’ll do is invest in ideas that can help us meet our common challenges, because more often than not the next great social innovation won’t be generated by the government.

"The non-profit sector employs 1 in 12 Americans and 115 nonprofits are launched every day. Yet while the federal government invests $7 billion in research and development for the private sector, there is no similar effort to support non-profit innovation. Meanwhile, there are ideas across America – in our inner cities and small towns; from college graduates to folks making a career change – that could benefit millions of Americans if they’re given the chance to grow.

"As President, I will launch a new Social Investment Fund Network. It’s time to get the grass roots, the foundations, the private sector and the government at the table. We’ll invest in ideas that work; leverage private sector dollars to encourage innovation; and expand successful programs to scale. Take a program like the Harlem Children’s Zone, which helps thousands of kids in New York through after-school activities, mentoring, and family support. We need to make that model work in different cities around the country. And I’ll start a new Social Entrepreneur Agency to make sure that small non-profits have the same kind of support that we give small businesses."

Spurring private action through public programs. Obama almost sounds like a Republican with his call for "personal responsibility" and acknowledgment that "the next great social innovation won’t be generated by the government."

Does Barack Obama have a chance to become President? He got this Independent's attention with this speech.

Read the full speech here: The Swamp

Blogging: Thank you, reader, for 3 Years of The Green Skeptic

I started this blog 3 years and 330 posts ago, on 24 November 2004. It's been a good run and the past year has been the best ever. Readership is up, as is my RSS subscriber list, and it would seem the switch I made a year or so ago to narrow the focus to the four areas that consume my interests -- global climate change, social entrepreneurs, microfinance, and clean tech investments and innovation -- has been a success.

Thank you, dear reader, for your continued interest, comments, emails, and dialogue. Without you, The Green Skeptic would be just a voice in the wind. Keep reading and letting me know how I'm doing.

Philanthropy & Environmental Change: Should Social Capital Markets Take Over?

I'm taking up a friendly challenge here.

Lucy Bernholz, who writes the excellent blog Philanthropy 2173, and I started a blogalog (Did I just coin that term?) between our blogs about the state of philanthropy and environmental change.

It began in response to Lucy's listing of green blogs in the wake of Blog Action Day last Monday, and her noting the lack of discussion of philanthropy on the sites listed (including mine).

My defense stemmed from a concern about philanthropy and its effectiveness as an agent of change in the environmental sphere, which actually was the origin of this blog. I have grown increasingly concerned about the ability of traditional philanthropy to effect lasting change at a pace commensurate with the global challenges we face.

I expressed this concern in my essay for GreenBiz, "Confessions of a Green Skeptic," several years ago about the Earth Charter.

Back then (March 2003), I wrote, "we need to demonstrate how profitable being green can be, and how essential it is to a truly global sustainability. If we can turn the greed motivation to green motivation, effectively turning it on itself, does the means justify the end? Hard to say. But if greed isn't going away anytime soon, we are left with trying to redirect the motivation any way we can. Guilt has worked, but only gets us so far. 'Envy trumps guilt' every time."

This sentiment was influenced by Thomas Friedman's thoughts on the subject expressed in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, that "if conservationists are going to get ahead of the greedy we need to move faster. 'For now, the only way to run as fast as the herd is by riding the herd itself and trying to redirect it,' Friedman writes. 'We need to demonstrate to the herd that being green, being global, and being greedy can go hand in hand.'"

And it was echoed by Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison in their book, The New Economy of Nature, from which I quoted, "the record clearly shows that conservation can't succeed by charity alone. It has a fighting chance, however, with well-designed appeals to self-interest."

Things have changed quite a bit since I wrote that essay -- the world has gotten flatter, green has become the new black, Al Gore won an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, and the herd has started to move to greener pastures.

But a lot hasn't changed. In Philanthropy, as Susan Raymond points out in a two-part piece called "Does Philanthropy Scale?," the "vast majority of American nonprofits are small; 60 percent or more...have less than $100,000 in annual revenue." And, Raymond notes, "the average foundation grant to nonprofits is on the order of $25,000."

Raymond also points out that "the number of nonprofits with $10 million or more in revenue has increased by 73 percent in the last decade," and asks, "when $25,000 is the average grant, is philanthropy the answer to organizational growth? Indeed, is it even relevant as a source of capital?"

I'm going to quote one more thing from Raymond's essay: "The evolution of microfinance teaches that, when what had been a philanthropic initiative matures and proves its worth, alternative capital sources step in and redefine the opportunity. Is achieving scale, then, the clue for philanthropy to either evolve or exit? And, if so, do we need to rethink what we mean by 'philanthropy' for large organizations or proven initiatives in social markets?"

I quote Raymond's piece at length because it corroborates some of my own thinking on this subject. She rightly points out that the biggest advantage of philanthropic capital is its "ability to take significant risk, to seed a promising idea and recognize that all promising ideas can be failures."

So risk tolerance or tolerance for failure, playing on the field of ideas and at at the edge of problems "where the probabilities of success are unknown, is the key playing field for philanthropy."

For many ideas, perhaps chief among them those addressing environmental issues, it may be time for other types of capital to be brought to bear. I'm particularly interested in what Raymond describes as "a multiplicity of approaches to organizational finance in the nonprofit sector...for self-reliance, sustainability, and (yes) profit" to come to the stage.

This is not far from what Lucy refers to as "tri-sector solutions," such as the B Corporation she has described or the bond purchase strategy Raymond describes in her piece. (In the latter, Raymond explains, "'Donors' took on the role of guarantor rather than funder, and the resources flowed at levels that donations would never have been able to sustain.")

Elsewhere in the web pages of onPhilanthropy, John Bloom of RSF Social Finance, posits that "social finance holds that the purpose of money and finance is to support human initiative and to foster the evolution of new community."

And, Bloom suggests, social finance recognizes "the human and environmental consequences of economic activities...[and] presents a picture of a healthier sustainable future -- and one that leaves behind the industrialist model of philanthropy..."

I will continue this dialogue here on The Green Skeptic, because I think it is an important one, and part of an ongoing, evolving thought process for me that started over four years ago and which led to this blog. Thanks to Lucy for calling me out about it and fostering this dialogue.

Innovation: Hacking Philanthropy Sessions, Hosted by Union Square Ventures

Imagine a room packed with a ton of brain power, knowledge, and expertise from the world of venture capital, technology, social change, and philanthropy and you've some idea what I walked into yesterday up at Columbia's Casa Italiana.

Brad Burnham, Fred Wilson, and Andrew Parker of Union Square Ventures -- the Three Tenors of New York's Silicon Alley -- brought together an illustrious gang for a day to talk about "Hacking Philanthropy," or how to bring philanthropic pursuits into the 21st century.

The participant roster was an all-star cast, including Charles Best from DonorsChoose.org, Premal Shah from Kiva.org, nattily attired Craig Newmark from Craig's List, Graham Hill of Treehugger.com, Red Hat and Lulu founder Bob Young, Dick Costolo, co-founder of Feed Burner, Victoria Vrana from Venture Philanthropy Partners, Tom Watson of Changing Our World, my new colleagues from Ashoka, Sushmita Ghosh and Leslie Crutchfield (whose new book, Forces for Good should do for non-profits what Jim Collins' Good to Great did for the private sector), Meetup.com Founder Scott Heiferman, Tom Reis from the estimable Kellogg Foundation (the only old guard institution represented), Jason Paez from the youth-centric start-up Party 4 A Purpose, Ashoka Fellow and Idealist founder Ami Dar, and even newly anointed MacArthur genius Saul Griffith of SQUID Labs. Quite a powerful group. (Not to mention we were joined at lunch by Maya Lin, who gave us an early look at her latest work in progress.)

The collective power of the group was exemplified by the conversation, which ranged from the potential for lightweight web services to increase the efficiency, reach, and effectiveness of philanthropy to wrestling with real-life business process issues. For eaxample, how to help Kiva close the gap between the numbers of on-line lenders versus certified microlending institutions in the field or why DonorsChoose, which currently focuses on putting school teachers in need with donors, could extend its reach to include other projects and pursuits.

For me, this event was timely. I have long been concerned about the state of philanthropy, among them: 1.) big institutions are so wedded to process and priority setting that they forget it's not about what we're selling to donor-investors but about what they are buying, 2.) that traditional philanthropy is still perceived as old fashioned, inefficient and stodgy, 3.) that, in fact, perception is reality, and 4.) that we risk losing the potential for catalyzing the network effect because we're focused on the wrong things. I could go on, and so could have this group.

It was a lively dialogue and, hopefully, just the beginning of an ongoing conversation among the participants. For now, kudos to the USV gang for bringing this group together. I have the impression it could be the start of something remarkable. Perhaps the full impact of our conversation yesterday will surface down the road and we'll be able to point to this session as a catalyst.

Social Entrepreneurs: Kawasaki Interviews Bornstein

One of our favorite business entrepreneurs/bloggers/authors (The Art of the Start), Guy Kawasaki, interviews one of our favorite chroniclers of social entrepreneurship (How to Change the World) and microfinance (The Price of a Dream), David Bornstein. What a cool combination: Kawasaki-Bornstein

Oh, and more good news is that Bornstein has updated How to Change the World for a new paperback edition. Looking forward to his new insights and to replacing my Penguin India edition that got mixed up in the binding process!

Social Entrepreneurs: Kiva on Oprah; Matt Flannery's Take

Over at Kiva Chronicles on Social Edge, Matt Flannery has an impassioned post in reaction to Kiva's appearance on Oprah, which is scheduled to broadcast on Tuesday. Ever wondered what it would be like to be on Oprah? How about sharing the stage with Bill Clinton? Imagine Matt and Jessica getting a two-fer. Here's a snippet of Matt's take on the taping. It's worth following the link to the full description.

We were in the audience. The show was focused on President Clinton's new book -- Giving. We assumed our seats in the front row. The President and Ms. Winfrey entered to great applause. There we were, in the front row, about arm's length away as the interview began.

We were in the 5th segment. I think that's right. The President and Oprah ushered us through 4 segments of emotional conversation and specials. I could almost touch them. Even so, it felt like I was watching a movie -- however more frightening because the characters could call on you at any time. You better be ready.

I couldn't pay perfect attention. About 45 minutes into the show, the Kiva segment began. A tape rolled highlighting Anne Brown, an artisan in Seattle who lent money to a seamstress in Ecuador. I didn't watch too closely because I didn't want to be too emotional as the biggest interview in my life would begin.

Then she called on us. Our most likely scenario was that Oprah would focus on Jessica, given that is a women-centric show. We were wrong -- she focused on me. How much has Kiva loaned so far? How does it make you feel? How long does it take for an entrepreneur to get funded? I could answer these questions in my sleep. However, they came out in slow motion. I didn't make any big mistakes. I was serviceable, not incredible. Since that time, I've replayed the answers in my head, second guessing every word. I'll probably never get the chance to address that many people again in my life. Thinking about it too much can drive you crazy.

She turned to Jess and asked about her inspiration. Jess got emotional. It was an emotional moment. She delivered a heart felt account of how we began Kiva. It was one of the more moving parts of the show.

The President and Ms. Winfrey spent the next few minutes talking about the power of the Internet and "the Kiva model." Watching this was truly surreal. If you had told me a year ago that I would watch these two people discussing Kiva in front of millions on TV, I would have laughed. I cannot tell you how ridiculous it would have seemed. It still seems imaginary.

Here's the link to Matt's full story: Kiva on Oprah

We'll be watching Tuesday.

IMAGINE: John Lennon Piano on Tour with Mission of Healing and Hope

This sounds like one of those conceptual art pieces John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono was famous for over 30 years ago. The piano on which Lennon composed his anthem "Imagine" is touring sites of violent death in an attempt to bring healing and call attention to violent crime.

The Wall Street Journal (imagine seeing John Lennon on the front page of the WSJ!) reported this morning that the tour was organized by the current owners of the piano, singer George Michael and his longtime partner Kenny Goss. The pair bought the piano at auction from a private collector for $2.1 million.

Naive symbolism? Folly in the face of the prevalence of violent crime? The kind of thing John would have done in his post-Beatles activist youth? Maybe. But for the people who have experienced it, such as Alec and and Gabi Clayton in Olympia, Washington, whose son, Bill, took his own life at age 17 after he was attacked in a hate crime, it may provide healing and call attention to the types of violence that are all too common across America. (Read Gabi Clayton's blog)

The tour includes anniversary appearances at the sites of world tragedies, such as the campus of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, New York's World Trade Center, the federal building in Oklahoma City, the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, and the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, on the 39th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination on the balcony of what is now the National Civil Rights Museum.

It all started last November at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of president John F. Kennedy. The tour was conceived after the piano was showcased at the IMAGINE exhibition at the Goss Gallery in Dallas last year.

"Imagine a world without violence, a world of peace. This sentiment echoes the lyrics to John Lennon’s 1971 song, 'Imagine,'" claims the Lennon Piano Tour website.

The Steinway upright is being photographed at each site for a possible book and documentary to "spread a worldwide message of peace, transcending time, cultures and boundaries."

Like the "Free Hugs Campaign," the Lennon Piano Tour is a simple act that touches people directly with a message that speaks louder than words of protest.

"This is about hopes and dreams and the world condition," Goss told the Associated Press last April.

The tour will likely conclude in December in front of the Dakota, where Lennon was murdered in 1980.

View a slide show of the stops along the tour: Lennon Piano. An RSS feed for updates is also available.

Watch the video of the Imagine Piano arriving at the Clayton's home and being played by proto-blogger and singer/songwriter Steve Schalchlin.



A moving tribute to a lost son.

Social Entrepreneurs: Games for Health Competition

I've been interested in the concept of using video games to explore solutions to social problems since the mid-90s, when some colleagues and I were exploring ways to use video games to do scenario thinking around the challenges of biodiversity conservation and complex planning.

Games for Change, led by Suzanne Seggerman, is one of the innovators in this space that has become a leader in expanding the platforms into a variety of social arenas, from education to climate change. They have their own (or associated?) competition happening: Games for Health.

Now Changemakers, an initiative of Ashoka, in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is seeking creative solutions that merge computer and video games with health and health care.

Why Games Matter: A Prescription for Improving Health and Health Care is a new competition designed to attract game developers from around the world into this emerging area.

All competition finalists will go to Baltimore, Maryland in May 2008, to present at the Changemakers Change Summit held in conjunction with the RWJF-sponsored "Games for Health" Conference.

Submit your entry by September 26, 2007 3:00 pm EST (21:00 GMT) (Requires sign-up.)

Read the current entries: Games for Health

(Disclaimer: While I am joining Ashoka in September, I have no direct affiliation with Changemakers.net or its programs.)