The grant program is intending to leverage the ideas in the paper and provide support to individuals in communities across the country implementing citizen-led efforts.
Apart these efforts are interesting, together they’re potentially ground shifting for several reasons. First, both efforts signal a realization by foundations that they must work fundamentally differently in the future. A foundation president does not spend significant time and his own capital participating in an experimental of this scope and public notice unless he thinks is signaling the importance that the institution is placing on this new way of working. And this is the first time that Case is has shaped a grant program with this much input from others on the front end and with an emphasis on individual over organizational grantees.
Which is the second point, both efforts emphasize participation by individuals over institutions indicates their understanding that continuing to assume that organizations are best suited to spark and implement social change efforts in communities is out of step with the reality that most of the explosive efforts in recent years have been extra organizational in origin. It also reflects that reality that with inexpensive social media tools the role of organizations has moved from being primary to being secondary. The second important parallel is that amount of transparency each brings to the foundation’s thinking and actions. As a reminder, dear reader, foundations are not required to share any information about their efforts but their tax returns. These two foundations have gone out of their way to let people in, to help shape the effort on the front end and to listen to them as their efforts have unfolded.
These efforts are hopeful signs for us idealists that the days of omnipotent, opaque foundations as the norm may be coming to an end.