Philanthropy to India: The Potential of Collective Impact
A Concept Note by Alex Counts and MR Rangaswami
People sometimes ask how the India Philanthropy Alliance evolved. There had been efforts in the past to catalyze some kind of consortium or network of India-focused nonprofits active in the United States to drive collaboration and reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts. But none had much staying power until Alex Counts and M.R. Rangaswami wrote this concept note and circulated it in advance of the Indiaspora Forum in Virginia in September 2017. At the time, Counts was the President/CEO of the American India Foundation and Rangaswami was (and remains) the founder and chairman of Indiaspora.
During a 90-minute session held on the sidelines of that Forum, around 15 organizations that were participating in the conference—including one that came only for this single meeting—debated whether and how such a collective impact initiative might take shape. For the next six months, the majority of attendees at that meeting met by conference call to determine what if anything should be created. In April 2018, the group decided to form the India Philanthropy Working Group. When it was publicly announced at another Indiaspora event—its second “Philanthropy Summit” in Washington, DC in October 2019—it was renamed the India Philanthropy Alliance.
After this paper came out, the Gates Foundation-financed report by Dalberg was followed up by additional studies of diaspora philanthropy to India that were summarized and built upon in this blog post by Counts, who would go on to become the Executive Director of IPA.
As is evident by reading the paper below, which has only been slightly edited from the original version, not all of the ideas initially proposed became part of IPA. But this paper demonstrates the power of laying the groundwork for a new philanthropic initiative, writing up a plan for others to react to, and then convening leaders to explore what should be done.
Summary and Background: Filling the India Diaspora Giving Gap
Recently, a report from Dalberg, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, estimates that members of the Indian Diaspora in the United States contribute $40-$60 million to causes in India each year. They argue that there is a giving gap among U.S.-based members of the Indian Diaspora of $60-$120 million annually. This is a result of many factors, including lack of trust in intermediaries, a desire of some philanthropists to directly control their expenditures, and the lack of a philanthropic orientation among some Diaspora members.
Even some of the money that is donated is not always as strategic and helpful as it could be. For example, some donors place unreasonable conditions on their gifts. Others exclusively target relatively prosperous areas of India. Some of the money that is currently contributed goes through organizations that have not had the talent and finances to invest in robust systems that help ensure high quality programming and dissemination of learnings, leading to inefficiencies.
We believe there is an important opportunity for the community of professionally run organizations focused exclusively on India to enter a new era of cooperation and collaboration, and in so doing to increase the amount and quality of philanthropy benefitting these organizations and their missions. But this will require us to do some things differently and to apply new ideas and positive trends in the development sector.
The Promise of Collective Impact
One of the trends in philanthropy is to have groups of organizations working on roughly similar issues to develop a common agenda and work to advance in a coordinated way even as they also pursue their individual missions. This requires overcoming the tendency of philanthropic efforts to be atomized, to fragment, and to operate independently.
There are many models of communities of social sector organizations coming together to develop a collective vision of impact and working collaboratively to achieve it. One is the NGO Leaders Forum, a gathering of the CEOs of the world’s largest international humanitarian organizations. The microfinance movement created the Microfinance CEO Working Group (MCWG) to drive industry collaboration towards a jointly crafted vision. One of the authors of this paper was a co-founder of the MCWG.
An influential article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review titled Creating High-Impact Nonprofits mentions six characteristics of the best social sector organizations and one is to “nurture non-profit networks.” The article states, “Although most non-profits pay lip service to collaboration, many of them really see other groups as competition for scarce resources. But high impact organizations help their peers succeed, building networks of nonprofit allies and devoting remarkable time and energy to advancing their fields. They freely share wealth, expertise, talent, and power with other nonprofits not because they are saints, but because it’s in their self-interest to do so.”
One interesting case study presented in the article is the Heritage Foundation, which devoted substantial resources to advancing the field of conservative ideas and policy, in addition to advancing itself as an organization. “To achieve its goals,” the article argues, “Heritage realized that it needed to build a movement, not just an organization.”
This approach has applications in the corporate sector as well. For example, the semiconductor industry, one of the most competitive in the world, discovered that close collaboration and information-sharing among rivals increased the success of everyone.[1]
Organizations advancing philanthropy to African-American causes came together six years ago and created “Black Philanthropy Month” (celebrated each year in August) in order to “grow the pie” of resources available to all organizations working to uplift their communities.
Applying this to Philanthropy Benefitting India
The community of organizations that are professionally run conduits of philanthropy from the United States to India could agree to work together to build confidence that they are trustworthy and competent stewards of donors’ generosity, each with different strengths and a collective commitment to leverage their diversity to build a movement.
A common agenda that could evolve over time might include:
Working together to double the amount of money going from the U.S. to professionally run organizations working exclusively or predominantly in India, potentially with the support of the donors that have shown an interest in diaspora philanthropy, and tracking and reporting on our progress every 6-12 months.
Submitting joint grant proposals to major funders in order to get more than they would likely give to member organizations if they applied individually.
Surveying attitudes among existing and potential donors to Indian humanitarian causes about the trustworthiness of various types of India-focused nonprofits, and then tracking trends and progress through regular resurveys.
Increasing the amount and percentage of philanthropy raised in the U.S. that is put at the full discretion of India-focused intermediaries and also the amount directed to geographic areas of highest need.
More robust sharing of lessons learned in terms of fund-raising and marketing in the U.S. and program success in India.
Joint negotiating with vendors for discounts on, for example, accounting and fund-raising software, with landlords for office space, etc.
Holding joint sessions to educate donors, board members, and volunteers spanning multiple organizations on the opportunities and responsibilities related to getting involved.
Improving our marketing of the opportunity to support members of this coalition as an alternative option for very high net worth individuals who are considering establishing their own channels including hiring staff teams in the U.S. and India.
Using member organizations’ social media channels to reinforce an emerging collective vision/message, as well as each others’ events and publications.
Encouraging member CEOs and other spokespeople to briefly mention the good work of other member organizations in their speeches by supplying sample text.
Launching an “India Philanthropy Month.”
In order to do this, leaders of the U.S.-based arms of these organizations would need to first build increased rapport that often is a building block of gradually increased coordination, collaboration, and communication necessary for collective impact. This could lead over time to slowly agreeing on a common vision and a practical action plan to realize it.
Learning from Others: How it Could Work
Drawing on the experiences of other collective impact efforts, some of which have been summarized in articles such as “Collective Impact” by John Kania and Mark Kramer in SSIR, the following is an example of how this could move forward. This is meant not as a concrete plan but rather as initial ideas to get a conversation going about what model could work best for this community.
The CEOs (or others of sufficient seniority) of the U.S. arms of professionally run organizations programming funds exclusively in India (i.e., member organizations) could begin meeting monthly by teleconference/videoconference with quarterly in-person meetings hosted by each organization on a rotating basis. To be a member, organizations would need to meet some minimum threshold in terms of budget and staff size. Over the course of a year, they will be able to decide if such gatherings create value and can lead to a common/collective vision that could be the basis of coordinated activities. Gradually, they could focus on specific industry-building goals even as they developed increased rapport and trust.
There may be immediate low-hanging fruit, such as coordinating a calendar of events in key markets to ensure improved efficiency.
It will be important to have at least a part-time staff member to coordinate these sessions so people’s times are well used.
The designated representative of each member organization would not be able to send more junior colleagues in their place—they either participate in a session or their organization is unrepresented, and they simply get the notes. This ensures that the dialogue has continuity and is at an appropriately high level. In general, donors would not join these meetings, which will help ensure candid dialogue.
A neutral organization with knowledge of this movement could serve as the fiscal sponsor, secretariat, and play other value-added roles.
Modest annual dues could be assessed to member organizations on some kind of equitable basis (a flat fee or one based on revenues) to help fund a small Secretariat and cover other costs. It could be called the India Development Forum or Working Group, or some other suitable name.
Early Reactions
This vision has been shared with several leaders of these organizations, and the general response has been positive. However, the true test will be when organizations are asked to commit valuable time and treasure to this collective impact effort. Donors who give to multiple organizations in this movement have been especially supportive to this concept in principle.
Next Steps
A meeting of leaders of some of the best regarded organizations in this movement including Dasra, which plays an important role of facilitation and thought leadership, will be convened at the Indiaspora Forum held in September 2017. Based on those discussions, some initial steps towards creating an ongoing consultative mechanism can be taken.
It would be essential that the mechanism and the vision be owned by the membership organizations and their leaders, rather than any one organization or leader. Thus, it would take time to evolve in a sustainable way.
We request feedback, including criticism, on these ideas so as to improve them and move towards a decision on whether and how to go forward with some steps towards a program for collective impact.
[1] A scholarly article on this collaborative approach can be found here.