Menu

Networking models for grantmaking

January 25, 2006 By Uncategorized

That sounds like a dry title…but let me explain.

I am doing some work at the moment with an organization called the Centre for Sustainability, a group out of the Vancouver Foundation that administers some grants programs to support organizational development for non-profits.

We are designing a program, called the Technical Assistance Program for Aboriginal Non-Profits (TAP) specifically for Aboriginal non-profits and as part of that work we are travelling around BC hosting conversations with the folks out there who might end up being recipients of the program’s funding. Yesterday in Terrace we heard some things that made us rethink a large part of the approach to how these types of programs are run.

Essentially, government and philanthropic organizations support these types of initiatives by issuing grants to recipients who do the work and then return a report to the funder. The work benefits the organization, and the funder is satisfied with the results. The loop is closed.

In Terrace we heard from people that there is much to gain from sharing stories about organizational development efforts and that our focus groups themselves, using storytelling as a means to contribute to our learning, are just as valuable as activities for which organizations might get funded. This started us thinking a bout a new model of networked learning and organizational development support that we sketched out for further inquiry.

Essentially, this model is an open loop learning process and is based in the idea of “paying forward” the lessons learned. Organizations would continue to receive grants to do the work, but with one additional reporting requirement: they would have to share what they learn. Materials produced in the process of rejigging their governance, designing policy manuals or creating human resources recruitment processes for example would be open source, and freely available to any other organization that wanted to use them. The resources would be hosted on a website and available to all.

Also, the recipient would be required to produce a presentation for one of five annual regional networking events around the province. These events would be supported by the granting agency and would invite organizations interested in OD issues to come together to learn from one another, participate in workshops and most importantly, hear the results of TAP recipients learnings from the work they have been doing. The advantage here is that presentations and reports could be in any format. And arts organization could make a dramatisation of their process, others could use video or storytelling sessions, and some might want to convene a conversation to tell the story and then discuss it further with other, to build even more learning.

Over time, we can build these networks into self-sustaining communities of practice, using and contributing to a growing body of materials freely available to all, and with increasing capacity in the regional networks for mutual help, support and collaboration.

The idea is new to us, but it combines many thoughts and theories I have worked with over the years including open source, social networking, learning networks and communities of practice, new forms of giving and I think it has some implications for progressive philanthropy as well. Hopefully Phil and others will weigh in and let me know.

Sarvodaya, evolution and development

January 22, 2006 By Being, Organization, Philanthropy

Before I took off to the Evolutionary Salon last week I blogged about Sarvodaya.

Today I have been scouring recent postings at the Sarvodaya blog and I find this, from Deepak Chopra’s comments to a Sarvodaya Peace dialogue:

Today we are shifting from the industrial age to the information age. Today wealth and power come from Information Technology. And Information Technology has become very powerful today. In a few years it will become even more powerful. It will be possible for anyone to have this kind of computer in their pocket and interfere with air traffic. It will be possible through handheld implements to make nuclear stations leak and cut off electricity. And when that happens we will make ourselves extinct because we have powerful technology combined with ancient habits.But Dr. Ariyaratne and Sarvodaya are giving us a new model and this is saying that we have to move from the age of information to the age of knowledge. And we have to move from the age of knowledge to the age of wisdom. When you saw those slides on the screen, you saw a model that was based on the wisdom of civilization. And this wisdom and this civilization say one thing and one thing only: that the future does not belong to the survival of the fittest, but that it belong to the survival of the wisest. Survival of the wisest will become the new criteria for evolution. It is a new civilization based on wisdom-based consciousness, a wisdom-based economy, and a wisdom-based power structure and leadership, the three pillars that you saw in the slide from Sarvodaya, which are economy, consciousness, and power. This wisdom therefore is the most important thing that we seek in our lives today. Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Lord Buddha said that the world is about interdependence; the environment, the forces of nature, and human consciousness are all part of one single reality. And today many scientists are talking about interdependent co-arising. But this interdependent co-arising gives birth to a field of consciousness that should make this change.

What can we do to nurture the evolution of the wisdom-based age? I am most interested in ways of being together in groups, communities, families and other aggregations, but also in what wisdom looks like in the structures that support those groups, structures like money, power, the natural world and information. Those of you that have read along with me for a while will know of my ongoing inquiry into philanthropy, decentralized governance, learning from the natural world and our stories about the natural world, and peer to peer ways of connecting. Where is your edge of inquiry around this question?

Facilitation learning opportunities coming up

January 19, 2006 By Art of Hosting, Facilitation, Featured, Learning

Some upcoming learning opportunities in the British Columbia and Washington state areas…

News from my dear friend Peggy Holman that she and Steve Cato are offering their Appreiciative Inquiry facilitation training on February 1-3, and it’s not too late to register.

Toke Moeller is hosting a FlowGame at Aldermarsh on Whidbey Island in the middle of March, after which we are penciling in an Art of Hosting primarily with Aboriginal youth, but open to the public as well on Vancouver Island.

Michael Herman and I will be offering a retreat to support practices for Open Space faiclitation in April, during the week of April 17th here on Bowen Island. We’re almost ready to make a formal announcement and invitation, but if you’d like more details leve a comment or send me and email.

And tonight, Christina Baldwin is reading from her new book Storycatcher: Making Sense of our Lives Through the Power and Practice of Story at Ayurveda in Vancouver at 3636 West 4th Ave. from 6-8pm. That event is free, so if you’re in the area you shouldn’t miss the chance to hear Christina read. I might get down to that if I get a chance.

So with all this good hosting learning going on, here is a great hosting song to add to the playlist:

Principles of indigenous science

January 19, 2006 By Being, First Nations

Jeff Aitken left me a comment with a useful framework for inquiry form Apela Colorado. These are principles of indigenous science:

1. The indigenous scientist is an integral part of the research process and there is a defined process for insuring this integrity.
2. All of nature is considered to be intelligent and alive, thus an active research partner.
3. The purpose of indigenous science is to maintain balance.
4. Compared to Western time/space notions, indigenous science collapses time and space with the result that our fields of inquiry and participation extend into the overlap of past and present.
5. Indigenous science is holistic, drawing on all the senses including spiritual and psychic.
6. Indigenous science is concerned with relationships, we try to understand and complete our relationships with all living things.
7. The end point of an indigenous scientific process is a known and recognized place. This point of balance, referred to by my own tribe as the Great peace, is both peaceful and electrifyingly alive. In the joy of exact balance, creativity occurs, which is why we think of our way of knowing as a life science.
8. When we reach the moment/place of balance we do not believe we have transcended — we say that we are normal! Always we remain embodied in the natural world.
9. Humor is a critical ingredient of all truth seeking, even in the most powerful rituals. This is true because humor balances gravity. (1994)

I’d like to suggest this as a framework for thinking about inquiry within a bodhisanga that takes its cue from the relationships between humans and the cosmos and the divine.

Evolving consciousness in practice

January 18, 2006 By Practice

Back home now. I’ll blog a little more on my learning from the Evolutionary Salon, especially with respect to the notions of the bodhisangha that was raised.

For now here is a bit from an email sent by a friend who is a medical doctor, and who has been following along with the ideas raised in the Salon:

As far as my comments on the subject of evolution of consciousness goes, I have to admit that my thoughts are not yet formed enough for me to make a coherent statement about them. The whole idea of raising humanity as a whole to a different level of consciousness is fascinating to me. I have been starting to “plant seeds” about it in my daily dealings with patients, albeit in very minor ways. Sometimes the results are quite surprising. It makes me aware of how little our culture supports nurturing of each other, opting either for selfishness or guarded suspicion.

I think that’s very cool. My question to all and especially for my colleagues with whom I have been in dialogue, is how can we support that action in a way that amplifies?