Nonprofit Chronicles

Journalism about nonprofit organizations and their impact

An

An “improved” biomass cookstove in India. Source: GNESD Energy Access Knowledge Base

Today, The Washington Post published my story about the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves in its Sunday Outlook section. Clean cookstoves strike me as a classic example of a well-intentioned development intervention about which evidence of impact on a meaningful scale is lacking. I’m going to try to draw a couple of lessons from my reporting but first, please take a look at the story.

Here’s how it begins:

About 3 billion of the world’s poorest people burn wood, charcoal or dung in smoky, open fires to cook their food and heat their homes. Millions die annually from lung and heart ailments caused by cooking with solid fuels, according to the World Health Organization.

With that in mind, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, launched a public-private partnership called the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves in 2010. By creating a global market for “clean and efficient household cooking solutions,” the alliance would “save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women and protect the environment.” Providing poor women with clean cookstoves, Clinton said at the annual gathering of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, “could be as transformative as bed nets or even vaccines,” which have saved tens of millions of lives.

It hasn’t worked out that way, despite the best efforts of the alliance, which operates as a project of the U.N. Foundation in Washington.

The global alliance, in its five-year report, says it has helped drive more than 28 million clean cookstoves into the field. But clean is a nebulous term. The vast majority of those cookstoves-roughly 20 million-burn biomass (wood, dung, charcoal, agricultural waste) and don’t meet admittedly strict WHO health guidelines for indoor air emissions. They would be better described as “improved” or “efficient” than as “clean.” This distinction, alas, is sometimes blurred by the alliance. The uncomfortable truth is that it is extremely difficult to design, manufacture, distribute and sell truly clean cookstoves at a price that the world’s poorest people can afford. Continue Reading

The celebrated business journalist Carol Loomis, who worked at FORTUNE magazine for decades, used to say, only half in jest, that there were only two FORTUNE stories. One was “Oh, the glory of it!” The other was “Oh, the shame of it!” This is even more true of press coverage of nonprofits, which tend to be portrayed as saintly/admirable or corrupt/incompetent, and rarely as anything in between. This isn’t good for the press, it isn’t good for nonprofits and it isn’t good for the rest of us.

Consider, as an example, the story of Pari Livermore. Ms. Livermore, a former TWA flight attendant, married into a prominent San Francisco family and became what GQ described as “the matchmaker of choice among the high-tech millionaires of Silicon Valley.” She has, by her own account, arranged more than 300 marriages, including those of Larry Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle; Scott McNealy, the former CEO of Sun Microsystems; Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce and Frank Caulfield, a founder of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. In exchange for her services, she asked her clients to donate to charity.

Pari Livermore

Her unorthodox business model generated glowing coverage in The New York Times (“Fall in Love for a Good Cause“) and favorable exposure on the CBS Evening News (“all the money from this match-making venture goes to charity“) and NBC’s Today show (“one of America’s top matchmakers“). Much of it was pegged to her 2007 book, How to Marry a Fabulous Man.

On NBC, Livermore said:

“I don’t accept money myself. I ask mostly the men to make donations to me-not to me, but to the charities. It doesn’t go through my bank accounts. It’s to the nonprofit organizations. And the women do a lot of volunteer work. I want people to do wonderful things for good causes.”

Her local paper, the San Francisco Examiner, gushed:

Pari takes no money. Every dime she collects from titans looking for the love of their life is deposited directly to charity — this year it’s Spotlight on Heroes, whose mission is to highlight volunteers and nonprofit organizations.

Oh, the glory of it!

The trouble is, Spotlight on Heroes is not and has never been a charity. Continue Reading

Few institutions in the US are as undemocratic as endowed foundations. The executives in charge of foundations answer to, er, no one. They give money away, so people tend to laugh at their jokes, tell them they look well, nod in agreement at their banal remarks. What’s not to like?

As for nonprofits, they pay heed to foundations and donors, but they need not listen to their “beneficiaries,” unless they feel a moral obligation to do so. What if, goodness knows, the people they are trying to serve turn out to be unhappy with the service? Talk about inconvenient truths.

fbl-final-logoLast week in Washington, a group of about 70 people — the generals and foot soldiers of a growing movement to devolve power to mostly poor recipients of aid in the US and abroad — came together to talk about how to turn that power dynamic of philanthropy upside down. They believe that feedback from constituents “has the potential to unleash massive, timely and necessary changes in the way social change and development are pursued,” in the words of Feedback Labs, a DC-based NGO that convened the first Feedback Summit.

As Dennis Whittle, the executive director of Feedback Labs, has written:

Will aid and philanthropy democratize themselves? Will aid agencies and foundations cede power and sovereignty to the people they are trying to serve?

It’s too soon to say but there were signs during the two-day confab that a half-dozen or so forward-thinking foundations, along with a growing number of nonprofits, are starting to figure how to create tight feedback loops that will enable them to solicit feedback from citizens, listen, analyze and, most important, change their practices as a result of what they learn.

“It’s the right thing to do, morally and ethically, philosophically. It’s the smart thing to do,” Whittle said. Now the goal is to make it “the feasible thing to do, financially and operationally.”

How do feedback loops differ from conventional monitoring and evaluation (M&E)? One attendee told me that feedback loops are the equivalent of diagnosing and treating a disease; a conventional evaluation is more like an autopsy, and thus of limited value to the patient.

Here are three signs that the feedback movement is gathering momentum: Continue Reading

Mr. McGuire has just one word for Ben.

Mr. McGuire has just one word for Ben.

In a scene in The Graduate (1967), Benjamin Braddock, the character played by Dustin Hoffman, was given the most famous bit of career advice since Horace Greeley advised readers to “go west, young man.”

“Ben. I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening?…Plastics.”

Today, math-literate young people might need two words to point them towards a sizzling-hot sector of the economy: big data.

Big data is a big deal, in the nonprofit world as well as in business. How else to explain the overnight success of Bayes Impact, a nonprofit formed less than 18 months ago by a couple of not-long-out-of-Berkeley grads that has already attracted about $2 million in support from foundations and clients including Y Combinator, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, LinkedIn for Good, Microsoft, Youth Villages, Teespring, the Tableau Foundation, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the government of France.

Eric Liu

Eric Liu

Eric Liu, 24, and Paul Duan, 23, the co-founders of Bayes Impact, clearly are onto something. They describe themselves as “practical idealists who believe that, applied properly, data can be used to solve the world’s biggest problems.”

“We want to improve the ways that people get health care, education and housing services,” Liu told me, when we met for coffee in Washington. He’d just come from a meeting with the VA, to talk about how Bayes Impact can help the agency place unemployed veterans in jobs, by matching their military skills to the needs of the civilian job market. “It’s really exciting.” Continue Reading

Bill Gates, effective altruist?

Bill Gates, effective altruist?

Maybe, if you want to make as much difference as you can in the world, you should not go to work for a nonprofit. Or a foundation. Or the government.

Maybe you should consider trying to maximize your income, and then give most of it away.

That’s one of the ideas put forth in Will MacAskill’s new book,of Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference. I blogged about the book a while ago here, focusing on effective philanthropy, and more recently took a look at MacAskill’s career advice in a story for The Guardian.

One way to make a difference is called “earning to give.” Here’s a relevant excerpt from my story: Continue Reading

moss_jacob

In my last post to Nonprofit Chronicles, I wrote about longstanding efforts by governments, NGOs and companies to get cookstoves to some of the 3 billion people who prepare their food and heat their homes using smoky, open fires. The post generated some thoughtful pushback, including an email from Jacob Moss, a longtime EPA executive who knows as much as anyone about cookstoves. He gave me permission to reprint it, below.

I’m still trying to work out what I think about cookstoves, and particularly about the focus of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a public-private partnership formed in 2010 with the goal of getting 100 million clean or efficient cookstoves out to those who need them by 2020. My post was critical of cookstoves that burn biomass-wood, charcoal, dung or agricultural waste-because they don’t meet World Health Organization guidelines (which are admittedly strict). I quoted, approvingly, several people who argued that the alliance should be more focused on clean fuels — LPG, ethanol, electricity and biogas — than on cookstoves, per se.

One challenge is defining precisely the problem that cookstoves are trying to solve. The serious health consequences of cooking over open fires? Greenhouse gas emissions? Conventional air pollution? Poverty, which is made worse by the costs of inefficiently burning wood or charcoal? Put simply: If cookstoves are the answer, what’s the question? In Jacob’s email, he argues that biomass cookstoves, while not ideal, deliver meaningful health, environmental and economic benefits to some of the poorest people in the world: Continue Reading

Boiling tea with a Project Gaia cookstove in Kenya

Boiling tea with a Project Gaia cookstove in Kenya

No one is getting rich making cookstoves for the poor, least of all Harry Stokes. Stokes is the unpaid executive director of a small nonprofit called Project Gaia, which has been trying since the late 1990s to get cookstoves that burn ethanol or methanol into the hands of some of the estimated 3 billion people on earth who still cook over open fires using biomass-wood, charcoal, agricultural waste or dung.

Cooking over smoky, open fires generates household air pollution which is responsible for an estimated 4.3 million premature deaths a year, more than HIV/AIDs or diarrhea. These deaths are preventable. No one dies from cooking in rich countries.

Based in Gettysburg, Pa., with operations in Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, Madagascar and partnerships in several other countries, including Haiti, Project Gaia has made modest progress in the last 15 years, notably in Ethiopia, where it supplies cookstoves and ethanol fuel to about 7,000 households in three refugee camps, an effort supported by the UN. Its other projects are small as well, no more than a few thousand stoves in each country, at least for now.

“We are on the cusp of scaling up in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, South Africa, and Nigeria,” Stokes told me the other day, when we met over coffee. “The technology is tried and true.”

Stokes is an optimist. You have to be to work in the cookstove sector. People have been trying for decades to invent, produce, market, sell or give away cookstoves that the world’s poor women want to use. They have met with more failure than success. Changing behavior is hard; women have been cooking over open fires for generations. Kirk Smith, a professor of environmental health at Berkeley and the world’s leading public-health researcher on cookstoves, told me recently that more people are cooking over open fires today than ever, because population growth has outpaced efforts to get cookstoves adopted. Making cookstoves to burn biomass cleanly has been an especially vexing challenge.

As journalist Meera Subramanian writes in A River Runs Again, a new book about India and the environment with a long chapter about cookstoves: “No one has yet created a biomass stove that is truly harmless to human and planetary health and affordable and desirable to the families that need them most.”

I’ve been reporting on the cookstove sector, while preparing an article for publication (soon, I hope) on the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a public-private partnership launched by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010. It’s a fascinating sector, populated by smart, dedicated people. I’ve met with Radha Muthiah, the CEO of the alliance and Jacob Moss, an estimable and mostly-unsung career civil servant who helped to create the alliance. I’ve spoken by phone with Kirk Smith; Kevin Starr of the Mulago Foundation; Ron Bills, who leads a fast-growing Colorado-based cookstove manufacturer called Envirofit; Eric Reynolds, who runs Inyenyeri a cookstove startup in Rwanda; Dean Still, executive director of the Aprovecho Research Center; and Elisa Derby of Winrock International, who has worked on cookstoves for more than a decade. And I’ve come away with as many questions as answers: Continue Reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 423 other followers