The online community is aflutter with news of the change in leadership at Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Internet giant Google. Dr. Larry Brilliant, the first Executive Director, is moving away from a day to day oversight role to become ”Chief Philanthropy Evangelist,” in charge of developing big ideas and identifying partners in the philanthropy work. In his place, Google’s Vice President of New Business Development, Megan Smith, is taking over.
What is Google.org?
Despite the “.org” right there in the name, Google.org is not a foundation or a nonprofit organization. It’s more like an umbrella organization. Google.org is a pool of resources: financial, human and intellectual capital. I frequently cite Google.org in speeches as an example where all the tools of the new approach to philanthropy are in play: grants, investments, advocacy efforts, human skills, corporate reputation and significant business networks, just to name a few. Google.org tries to bring the right resources to the problem at hand.
Why the Shake-up?
According to Dr. Brilliant, Google.org reviewed its progress after three years: “During our review it became clear that while we have been able to support some remarkable non-profit organizations over the past three years, our greatest impact has come when we’ve attacked problems in ways that make the most of Google’s strengths in technology and information.”
So take for example the FluTrends Project. According to the site, “We’ve found that certain search terms are good indicators of flu activity. Google Flu Trends uses aggregated Google search data to estimate flu activity in your state up to two weeks faster than traditional systems.” Could anyone but Google have found such a brilliant early warning system for public health officials? It’s doubtful.
In essence, Dr. Brilliant is saying that Google.org is going to focus on projects where it’s unique strengths put Google.org in a position to bring value and add insight to solving social problems. And if you think about it, the lesson there is both obvious and yet profound.
Lots of philanthropists have money to spend on solving social problems–that certainly isn’t a unique strength. And lots of philanthropists big, tiny and everywhere in between have spent that money, many of them always feeling like they weren’t being as effective as they would like to be, but unsure of what to do differently. Google.org has come up with an answer: it’s not our money that makes us effective, it’s our know-how. They plan to focus on problems where information aggregation and innovative technology can bring key insights and move us toward new solutions.
And for those of us without a billion dollars to spend on our philanthropy, the same lesson holds true: It’s not the amount of our money that makes us effective philanthropists, it’s the strength of our other resources that help us decide where to donate that money.
Have you thought about what your expertise is and how you can bring it to bear on your philanthropic donations? If, as some pundits predict, the current recession is going to result in over 500,000 nonprofits going out of business, don’t you want to make sure the most effective ones stay in business? If so, then you need to direct your charitable giving to organizations that you are able to evaluate based on the skills and community knowledge that you already have.
If you’re an educator who works with small children, you may always wonder if you’re doing the right thing by donating to a national emergency relief organization after a natural disaster: Would a local church be more effective at finding and helping people in need? How do you know if you don’t understand the logistics and complications of emergency relief programs? But if you look at two education organizations working with kids in trouble, you’re probably going to feel more confident in the work of one or the other, based on your own experience and knowledge of the people, the approach and the leadership of the organization.
One last note:
Some will argue that the focus on technology solutions is self-serving and takes Google’s philanthropy more in line with traditional corporate philanthropy–usually perceived as self-serving, thinly disguised marketing programs that serve the corporate interests more than society’s interests. It’s something for us all to keep an eye on, but this is where we can hope that the old mantra of “Don’t Be Evil” will play out for all of our benefit.
