Crib Notes for the Social Innovation Fund Selection Controversy

For the last two weeks, the philanthropy blogosphere has been humming with near constant chatter about the Social Innovation Fund and a might-have-been controversy around the selection process for its first intermediary grantmaking partners. I've stayed entirely out of the fray because, frankly, I wasn't sure what to think.

Now that a little time has transpired and more information has come to light, it's easier to track the trajectory of the conversation. I think the story is ultimately a success for the field, in that the right sort of pressure for transparency opened up more and better information. In terms of keeping the tone of the debate where it needed to be, huge credit needs to go to Sean Stannard-Stockton, whose Tactical Philanthropy blog has been the smartest and most informative throughout.

Here's a chronology of the SIF controversy:

July 23 -- Wise Picks? Commentators Weigh In on the Social Innovation Fund Grants: In July, the Social Innovation Fund released its selected intermediary partners -- the funders responsible for matching and then distributing the $50m authorized for the fund by the Serve America Act.

Early August -- Questions of Transparency Cloud the Social Innovation Fund: The Nonprofit Quarterly published this piece, arguing that the Social Innovation Fund's standards of transparency weren't up to what they should be, or perhaps even what was required by the fact that they were a government agency, using taxpayer dollars.

August 9 -- National-Service Agency Explores More Open Grant Process: Responding to those critiques, the SIF announced it would release the applications of winning intermediaries, but not the rest of the applicants.

August 19 -- Stonewalling at the Social Innovation Fund: This piece by NYU professor Paul Light busted open the conversation from a debate about the general merits of transparency versus opaqueness to something with a far more sinister suggestion -- that the SIF didn't want to release the applications and review ratings to the public because it had selected organizations that were reviewed poorly in early stages because of pre-existing connections with those organizations. Another reviewer, Stephen Goldberg, hit back in the comments accusing Light of making sweeping generalizations and stirring up a hornet's nest with little evidence.

August 20 -- Social Innovation Fund to Release Details About Application Process Amid Questions: The SIF again responded quickly, pledging to release (redacted) comments and reviews of the 11 winning candidates for the fund.

August 21 -- Nonprofit Fund Faces Questions About Conflicts and Selection Procedures: The New York Times picked up the story, outing New Profit as the winning intermediary at the center of Paul Light's criticism, and suggested that the SIF's pledge might not go far enough to satisfy critics.

August 21 -- New Profit's SIF Application: The same day the Times published its piece, New Profit posted its full, non-redacted application. Sean Stannard-Stockton also pointed out that, as of that point, the only evidence of any wrongdoing was a general and unspecific implication in Light's piece.

August 23 -- SIF Publishes Finalist Applications with comments: As promised, the SIF opened up more information about the finalist.

August 24 -- Social Innovation Fund Application Repository: Although the SIF has said it will not make non-winning applications available, Sean decided to collaborate with the Chronicle of Philanthropy to create a repository of those applications voluntarily turned over by organizations. Only Social Venture Partners has participated so far.

August 26 -- How the Social Innovation Fund Selected Grantees: This post on Tactical Philanthropy clearly articulates how the decisions within the SIF were made.

So what do I think about this supposed "controversy?" I think a couple things. First, it increased government transparency, even if marginally, which is a good thing. Second, it highlighted this fields incredible obsession with transparency, which I don't believe is a fundamental requirement of private actors. Third, ultimately, the biggest story was the story itself. I think a comment on Paul Light's original post, written by David Bornstein pretty well sums it up:

What's so disappointing to me, reading this column, and the associated commentary it has generated, is how it reinforces the old narrative that government is unavoidably corrupt. There's a veiled accusation of insider trading, which is unfortunate. I didn't take part in the reviewing process of the SIF, so I can only judge the process by its outcome, which appears perfectly acceptable to me. The winners have demonstrated that they know how to identify organizations that are making headway on major social problems. I suspect that most of your readers here have no clue how well this $50 million will be spent. Sadly, many of them will come away with mistaken the notion that this is another example of government waste or hubris. And that is both unhelpful and untrue.

Photo credit: kevindooley