Why can't the civic sector in Singapore collaborate?
It’s blog posts like these,
from Carla Thompson, VP of Programme Strategy, that really perks me up when
some days are the darkest. I get
inspired by the possibility of philanthropy thinking innovatively, acting
decisively, breaking out of various assumed constraints, to truly work towards
social impact.
When we read it again, surely it is so intuitive that
solutions that address children and parents should be looked at together? Yet
we know that history does not show this.
Foundations, and other grantmakers, have consistently espoused
individual impact, showcased individual performance.
No more so has this been more the case in Singapore, in my
view. There may have been the odd
examples of charities and nonprofits collaborating on ad-hoc projects; and
surely we have seen the multiple-party multiple-logos on the banner kind of “collaborative”
fundraising events.
Yet the long-term, shared-vision and shared-resources
approach of solving a pressing social problem through collaborative effort,
like the Strive Network, is still
elusive. Singapore has taken the approach
of “cross-sectoral agencies”, like SG Enable,
Agency for Integrated Care, etc. which show
that our government is making an effort (weak still, in my view).
But what of the civic sector? Why are nonprofits and
philanthropy so unwilling, or unable, to collaborate? At the worst, we see more
money chasing after commonly funded issues (see recent
Commissioner of Charities Annual Report and this insightful view on funding
duplicate projects).
I have some views on this:
1)
Everything
is a competition.
a.
Funds, attention, manpower, resources. Singapore’s preoccupation with the winner
taking all, seems to extend to our civic sector as well. Nowhere is this more
at risk than – gulp – funding. “How would a common pie be split among
different partners?” would be one of the first questions to be asked.
2)
Working
with partners is risky.
a.
How do we keep tabs on the other guy? When
it’s a commercial partnership, expectations are clearer as they are determined
by a common bottom-line – profit. How do
we manage risk when what’s at stake is the social welfare of our communities?
3)
Funders
are – at the end –self-serving.
a.
No, not selfish – just self-serving. Because they still see their acts of
philanthropy as a way through which their mission should be met. Philanthropic mission, which by the way, may
not be aligned with the social issue to be addressed. This gives rise to the tendency to call your
own shots, be the sole funder, so you can identify the sole star non-profit
that is solely attributable to delivering that star social impact.
4)
Good
news is good to share, bad news is my own.
a.
Effective collaboration requires open
transparency and a combined effort to share information for all members’
learning, so that the work can improve and progress. This means sharing not only all the good
stories, but also the failures, experiments, pilots, bad decisions. Our culture keeps bad news under cover, even
within our organisations. What is the likelihood we will share it with
collaborators?
True, a real collaborative effort that seems to harness collective
resources for collective impact, is a long-term commitment, requires heavy
investment, open transparency, and strong risk appetite. Question is – where are Singapore’s
changemakers and trailblazers to make this happen?
Share with me your ideas for encouraging truly collaborative
philanthropy and social changemaking!