Jane Wales and Larry Brilliant: Welcome and Conference...


Uploaded by Google on 16.07.2007

Transcript:

LARRY BRILLIANT: Good morning.

Welcome, everyone.
It's going to be hard to stop talking because it's a meeting
of so many wonderful people and so many wonderful friends.
My name is Larry Brilliant.
I'm the executive director of google.org.
I want to welcome you to Google.
It is such a pleasure for us to have you here.

It's really an honor for us to have you here.
We are very young and in so many ways and new to the field
of philanthropy.
And to have you here as a captive audience for us to
learn from means so much to everybody at Google.
I really want to tell you how deeply we appreciate you
coming to visit us.
I jumped at the chance to invite you when Jane, who is a
dear friend, told me that she was looking for a new place
for the Global Philanthropy Forum, which rotates every
year between the West Coast and Washington.
And we talked about the fact that there had not been a
corporate office that had ever hosted the Global Philanthropy
Forum and how part of the theme of this meeting will be
the new philanthropy.
And so we felt that it would be perfect to have you here at
what is really a novel, innovative, and
very different company.
It was so different--
that's what attracted me to come here.
It was the slogan, "Do no evil" that attracted me.
I didn't know about the dinosaur then.' I didn't know
about the space ship.
And I certainly had never seen the yellow brick road, which
you'll see as you walk from here to lunch.
Google is certainly a very different place and a
wonderful place.
And I'd like to thank the people at Google who have made
this possible for you.
So particularly, I want to thank the Google events team,
which is Lorin Pollack, Julie Collinson,
and Jennifer Shemirani.
If you guys could raise your hands.
Thank you.

And on the google.org team, I want to particularly thank
Meryl Stone and Tara Cannobio.
Where are you?

And that's Cannobio as in Obi-Wan Cannobio.
If you have any Google related questions or want to know
anything, seek them out or seek out anybody from Google.
And it is our job to make you feel welcome.
So we're all here.
And we're here, really, because we share an
opportunity and a dilemma.
We have the best jobs in the world.
We're able to see occasionally from our own hands suffering
being alleviated, poverty being mitigated.
It is a great blessing, the work that we are in.
But it's a very difficult job.
I think a year ago, before I came here and I got my
post-postgraduate course the last year with help from
Sheryl Sandberg, I don't think I quite knew how difficult the
job of giving away money, investing money, putting money
and resources to work was.
So I'm reminded of a story.
I lived in India for 10 years, so I love Indian stories.
And it's a story of a saint who comes to Banaras.
Now, how many of you have been to India?
Oh, look at this.
How many of you have been to and know about the Banaras?
I wager there's not very many places in the United States
you could go to, ask that question,
and have that result.
Banaras is a holy place.
It is perhaps the holiest place in India.
It's where the Ganges comes and the burning ghats are
there, where people go to die so that they can die in a holy
place and be cremated and their ashes
spread on the Ganges.
So the story is of a saint who comes to Banaras.
And he comes with a pocketful of coins, rupees.
And the way the burning ghats are established there, of
course, down at the equivalent of sea level-- and there are
thousands of steps that go up to the city.
The steps are thousands of years old.
They go back into antiquity.
And people come to Banaras to die.
So as you descend down the steps, you walk past people
who have come there at the end of their life.
And some are lepers.
Many are beggars.
Some are on crutches from polio.
Some are blind from smallpox.
Some have one leg, one arm.
And as the saint walked down the steps, he said, how do I
decide to whom to give my rupees?
Is there an algorithm?
Is there a summum bonum?
Is there an ultimate guiding principle?
Do I give one rupee to someone who has one leg and two rupees
to someone who has none?
How to weigh the suffering of blindness versus the
suffering of polio?
So in a way, while that is a bad example, because it's an
example about charity, certainly not strategic
philanthropy, which we are all hopefully engaged in, it is
the dilemma that we face.
It is what will be talking to each other about today.
It is both our opportunity, our quandary, our calling.
It elevates us to a higher and a more noble purpose.
And Google is honored to have you here to begin a
conversation with you that I hope will last our lifetimes.
And we are here because of one person.
We are here because of my dear friend, Jane Wales.
Jane is the founder of the Global Philanthropy Forum.
She is the CEO of the World Affairs Council.
She is the impresario who brought us together.
I think for each one of us, she is our best friend in
philanthropy, our guide.
It is an honor for me to introduce
you now to Jane Wales.
Thank you very much.

JANE WALES: Thank you, Larry, for welcoming us into your
place of work, your place of innovation, and for welcoming
us into your heart, which is what's most important.
In many ways, the story that Larry just told is the perfect
metaphor for the Global Philanthropy Forum.
Because that's why it was founded.
It was founded to help us to move from random acts of
charity to a strategic approach to philanthropy.
It's an effort to build a community of philanthropists
that are all committed to international causes, that are
committed to being strategic, and that want to perpetually
learn and to learn from one another.
And so we've invited you all to join us for yet another
year for the process of both teaching and learning.
And I want to thank you for offering to do both.
For those of you who are new to us, let me just say a word
or two about the community that welcomes you.
It is a community that represents at least six broad
trends in philanthropy.
And these are trends that are reflected in the agenda of the
next three days.
The first trend is that foundations that are founded
by living benefactors are beginning to match the scale
and the scope and even the impact of those foundations
that were founded as a result of an estate, a trust. These
living benefactors are agile, they're engaged, they're
strategic, they're global in their outlook.
And by and large, they are very much shaped by their
private sector experience.
The second broad trend is that they are willing to take on
extremely large problems, hence our focus this year on
the three problems of poverty, climate change, and global
health, infectious diseases.
These are large problems that we treat as systems, systems
that need to be replaced by new systems. And and so while
each of us may approach one aspect of the problem or
another to reflect our comparative advantage, we
recognize that these are complex, multidimensional,
dynamic systems.
We also recognize--
I can see Bill Draper trying to find his way.
This will take about a nanosecond.
Welcome, Bill.
We also recognize that while we treat each of these
problems in their own right, that the interactions amongst
those problems are dynamic, they are nonlinear, and
they're not completely known to us.
And so the third trend is that there's a deep appreciation
amongst new philanthropists, and amongst Global
Philanthropy Forum members more generally, in a deep
appreciation of the role of knowledge, the importance of
generating new knowledge, the importance of spreading
knowledge, and particularly in investing in the generation of
new knowledge in the developing world, where
there's a dearth of independent voices, where
there's a dearth of think tanks, where in general
government tends to dominate the source of knowledge.
Now, having said that, while knowledge is valued, Global
Philanthropy Forum members feel they know enough to act.
And, in fact, they feel they must act.
And so therefore, the fourth trend is that we define
philanthropy quite broadly to allow us to employ all the
tools, all the methods of financing social change.
So philanthropists are willing not only to make grants to
build the civil society infrastructure that is so
essential to social change, but they are also willing to
leverage their personal or their corporate brand to
advance their advocacy.
They're willing to leverage their assets.
They're willing to extend their own creditworthiness to
others through loan guarantees in order to lower the cost of
capital for the poor.
They're willing to make equity investments to advance their
philanthropic goal.
And so the fifth trend is that through our desire for
leverage, we are very willing to collaborate across sectors.
We're willing to collaborate with the private sector to
unleash private capital equity, to work with the
public sector to unleash taxpayer dollars.
They want to leverage both.
Now, having said that, that of course has led
to the sixth trend.
And that is the convergence of both the social and the
private sectors.
And that is what will be very much the focus of the next
three days.
After all, you're on the campus of Google, which is a
company that has as its core mission the provision of
information, usable information, useful
information, a social good.
And by virtue of translating the world's knowledge into the
languages of the developing world, Google makes a
contribution to providing to local farmers, to people who
were perhaps previously isolated by politics or by
poverty, provide them the information
they need to succeed.
Things that we assume, weather reports, news of a crop
blight, commodities prices.
The tools that we use to succeed can be made available
through this method.
But it's not only Google.
New philanthropists as a general matter are willing to
put their companies to the service of their social goals.
And we will have many, many examples of that in the next
three days.
Now, despite our fascination with market solutions and our
focus on these solutions and the role that the private
sector can play, we do ask that you bear
three things in mind.
The first is that grants represent true risk capital.
And therefore, they're essential,
they need to be valued.
The second is that policy matters.
Markets cannot solve all problems. Markets provide for
the rational distribution of wealth, but not always the
equitable distribution of wealth.
That is the role for policy and the role for philanthropy.
The third is that individuals, ingenious individuals,
inventive individuals, brave individuals are the people who
provide the keys.
They unlock the systems. They offer the acupuncture of the
idea that allows new solutions to flow.
And so we urge you to take the time to get to know the social
entrepreneurs amongst us and particularly take advantage
tomorrow evening of the opportunity to meet with them
and with their donors, their supporters, one on one, to
learn about their strategies, their successes, their
failures, and their vision of how to effect social change.
Now, as you listen to their stories, I just have a few
favors to ask.
The first is that you do your best, and we will do our best
to try to erase the boundaries between speaker and audience,
to erase the boundaries between grant maker and grant
seeker, and to erase the boundaries
between teacher and students.
We really urge you to do so.
All of you are here as experts in your own right.
We want to learn from you.
The second favor I have to ask is that in order to achieve
that goal, to erase those boundaries, we ask that you
take very seriously the notion that the Global Philanthropy
Forum is a no fundraising zone.
This needs to be a place where donors feel very free to try
on new ideas, to think aloud, to muse with others, to admit
to mistakes.
It needs to be that kind of free flowing forum.
It also needs to be a place where social entrepreneurs,
where grant seekers are treated with the same level of
respect that their expertise requires and suggests.
And so by respecting that no fundraising zone, you help us
to operate as a community, a learning community in which we
learn from one another.
The third is that we hope you'll take advantage of our
paperless ways.
Know that you're preserving both energy and
forests in the process.
Feel free to go to your laptop.
And I think we also have a bank of computers.
Yes, thataway.
And just go click on our website, click on the
conference panel that interests you.
And you will find collateral material there coming from the
various organizations that are doing really effective
work in this area.

The fourth thing we ask you is that you do network, that you
recognize that what happens in the hallways, the restrooms,
any old place is as important as what happens in this room
and in our breakout sessions.
Take advantage of your name tags that will, through a
color coded mechanism, maybe signal to others the things
that interest you most.
Finally, we ask that you enjoy, that
you enjoy one another.
And that you also enjoy the music of Angelique Kidjo.
Because at that point, I'm asking Larry to dance with me.
Because that's when the fun begins.
I want to return to Larry's story of the saint working
down the Ganges.

The conundrum that he faced was very much like the
conundrum faced by John D. Rockefeller, who started out
writing checks in response to the requests made.
He was responding to his own sense of conscience, his own
spirituality, his own sense of social responsibility.
But what he wasn't responding to is his own sense of
strategy early on.
He made that transition from charitable giver to strategic
philanthropist. He helped to invent the field of organized
philanthropy in the process.
And he and his sons went on to launch entire systems of
public health and to eradicate entire diseases.
We're talking about results.
So it's fitting that my task right now is to introduce to
you are as our keynote speaker the woman who leads the
institution that bears John D. Rockefeller's name.
Despite the Rockefeller Foundation's powerful legacy,
including catalyzing the green revolution, Judith Rodin does
not believe in resting on yesterday's achievements.
She feels that if Rockefeller Foundation is to be an agent
of social change, a social change institution, that it
too must be willing to change.
And so while you have Judith Rodin's bios in your programs,
I think that the best way for me to introduce her to you is
to simply say Judith Rodin is both a student of social
change and an agent of social change.
And she's here to share her views with us.
Thank you.

JUDITH RODIN: Thank you very much, Jane, for that really
generous introduction.
We've helped, like so many of you, to support the Global
Philanthropy Forum in recent years.
And it's been an honor and privilege to do so.
I'm delighted to be here at Google.
And it's great to be in the Bay Area with its vibrant
economy, and leadership, and technology, the new media.
Certainly its role as a gateway to the Pacific Rim and
Asia, and importantly, its dynamic philanthropic sector
represented by so many of you in the audience today.
It's wonderful to be here at Googleplex, this incubator of
ingenuity and innovation.
And I certainly can't imagine a better setting for a
conference that really aims to both inspire and to inform.
I couldn't conceive of a more inspiring group of speakers
and learners and collaborators in this process of really
coming to know and understand the challenges of the 21st
century with regard to philanthropy.
Because it is a remarkable time in philanthropy.
Larry talked about the great privilege of the opportunity
to be in this sector now, something that I think so many
of us feel.
But this is a moment with an abundance of change, both in
terms of remarkable acts of generosity that have energized
their sector and in terms of the tremendous needs in the
world today.
Our work has never been more challenging, and I think it
has never been more necessary.
But as Jane began, allow me for a few minutes to take you
back in time, back to 1913, the year that John D.
Rockefeller, Senior created the Rockefeller Foundation
with the role of promoting the well-being of
mankind around the world.
It was a milestone in the history of philanthropy, a
time when industrialists like Rockefeller and Andrew
Carnegie were directing substantial parts of their
enormous wealth toward some of the world's most difficult
problems.
And recall, the problems were immense.
Diseases like yellow fever, and hookworm, and malaria were
rampant, but there was little knowledge about
how to treat them.
Even the basics of public health were as yet unknown.
Since taking on my position, I've often thought of those
early philanthropists and what was happening in the world
around them that spurred them into action.
World War I, of course, was the great divide.
Out of that war came terrible insights into the fragility of
modern international political, and economic, and
social systems, but thankfully also a belief in a better
future possible for humanity.
Looking back at those early days, what strikes me is the
responsiveness of Rockefeller and his advisers to the
specific challenges of his day.
They saw conditions that needed to change.
They did their homework.
They invested heavily in world class research.
They called on experts, and they paid for advice, putting
many of them on the payroll.
They experimented and adapted and
changed course when necessary.
They didn't use the word innovation then.
They called it scientific philanthropy.
But innovation was their game.
It was bold.
It was a risk taking.
And it was experimental.
That first phase of philanthropy--
since I'm here, let's call it philanthropy 1.0--
still forms the bedrock of what we do today.
Out of its approach came breakthrough achievements such
as a vaccine for yellow fever and the professionalization of
the field of public health, the spread of Western medicine
around the world.
It was very ambitious work with a global reach, the first
global philanthropy of its kind.
In fact, in the early days of the foundation, the
Rockefeller Foundation gave more foreign resources than
the US government.
It expanded the frontiers of knowledge, and it improved the
lives of millions.
But it would take another world cataclysm, the Second
World War, to launch what we can think of as the next
generation of philanthropy.
Again, it came at a time when faith in the progressive view
of humanity was hanging in the balance.
World War II shattered old colonial empires.
And all over the globe, new political
structures were emerging.
The underdeveloped world and its problems came to the
foreground in new and profound ways.
Again, the Rockefeller Foundation and others adapted
to the new reality.
The result was philanthropy 2.0, with much more work on
the ground, the support and encouragement of the NGO
sector as critical intermediaries for our
philanthropy.
At the Rockefeller Foundation, this included supporting
entities that promoted knowledge about birth control
and techniques to improve maternal and child health, and
those that would lead to a revolution in agriculture in
places around the world where millions were starving.
We helped launch and create social justice and civil
society organizations at home and around the world.
This second phase of philanthropy added to the
bedrock of our foundation, literally and figuratively.
Philanthropy 1.0 and 2.0, each an adaptation to shifting
global realities, each giving rise to new ideas, new ways of
leveraging resources and tackling some of the world's
biggest problems at the time, again in new ways.
Today, I would argue we find ourselves at another
inflection point.
Once again, the world is changing dramatically.
The forces of globalization have shaken up the old
arrangements.
The Cold War clearly has ended, and once closed
societies have now joined the cultural and economic
mainstream.
We look at the effects of globalization, and we can see
benefits everywhere.
A revolution in technology, greater interconnection, more
interdependence, a transformation of our systems
of transportation, finance, and information.
The world grows smaller, and for many millions of people,
economic opportunities have expanded.
But not for everyone.
Some regions and groups are benefiting less than others.
In some places, globalization has generated more conflicts
within and between nations and exacerbated the inequities.
Millions of people are still living on less
than a dollar a day.
Some people are more vulnerable, and many more
people are falling further behind, both abroad and in the
United States.
To address these new sets of challenges, we at the
Rockefeller Foundation have been working on our version of
philanthropy 3.0.
Over the past two years, we've been engaged in an intense and
rigorous examination of our strategic direction.
At a time when the philanthropic sector itself is
undergoing a revolution, we've asked ourselves the following
questions, among others.
Of course, what are the forces of globalization, and what are
they telling us, and where they taking us with
regard to our work?
How can we make the most of our history and our resources
to ensure that we have the greatest impact?
How can we open ourselves to the great ideas and tap the
wonderful new thinking that's happening in this sector?
How can we listen better to our beneficiaries, an
important question, I think, for all of us.
And how can we be more responsive to
their needs and concerns?
And how can we better organize ourselves to continue to
address the world's most pressing problems?
This much we know as a result of this exciting work.
Nearly a century after the Rockefeller Foundation was
founded, our mission still has profound resonance for us.
The fundamentals that John D. Rockefeller, Senior identified
have not changed--
a focus on the root causes of global suffering and global
inequity and a determination to address profound social
issues around the world.
But to fulfill this mission with 21st century tools, we
are turning a new page.
We have seen that innovation emerges in unpredictable ways.
So we believe that the pipeline for new ideas and
approaches must more deliberately be opened.
And therefore, we've created new mechanisms to do so.
For example, if you now click Ideas on our home page, it
will take you to a new page, a new web based structure that
allows us to search the world for new ideas with regard to
improving and solving issues related to poverty and
vulnerability.
Our new initiatives will focus on specifically defined, time
limited initiatives that address big problems, where we
feel our involvement can make very high impact, where we can
really make a difference.
We will take on issues where we feel we can bring a
distinct and comparative advantage based on our
resources, our unique resources, our history, our
assets, our values.
Without fixed programs--
and we have changed from a program related structure to a
more open architecture--
we will work much more flexibly across disciplines
and areas of expertise, organizing ourselves and our
program work around the problem and what it will take
to solve it.
When fully built out, many of our initiatives will intersect
and overlap in Venn-like diagrams structures, because
these problems are knotty, and they are intertwined.
We're tackling problems that require us to be much more
nimble, to jump in quickly when the problems are urgent
and time sensitive, as well as continuing to invest in those,
when appropriate, that require a longer term commitment.
We're seeking novel and strategic forms of
partnerships with a variety of players.
And importantly, we're emphasizing work that enhances
building capacity and resilience and produces
systemic change.
Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.
We recently formed a strategic partnership with the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation called the Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa, AGRA.
Both foundations are committed to alleviating hunger and
improving agricultural productivity on the African
continent by working with small scale farmers to produce
substantial capacity building and systemic change.
Here we know that significant progress will only come over a
long term horizon.
We know that such an investment calls for an
intensely multi-layered and multi-partnered approach
requiring both small scale pilot work and very large
scale interventions.
Here each partner is intentionally and deliberately
working in a way that each does best, emphasizing its own
strengths and then pooling resources, both intellectual
and financial.
Rockefeller has done deep pilot work on seed breeding,
on soil fertility, and on output markets, creating and
supporting local NTOs and large
international research consortia.
We bring significant presence on the ground in Africa, and
prior to that experience, helping to effect a green
revolution in Latin America and Asia.
Gates has supported large scale studies to enhance crop
nutrients, develop new water technologies, and influence
output markets.
Together, we hope to bring vital energy, intellectual
rigor, and resources to the drive for increased
agricultural productivity on the continent.
All of these many, many elements of a continuum,
including effective policy, are necessary to create an
African green revolution.
But we are now ready as partners to combine these
areas of work and take them to scale in 13 African countries.
At the same time, our goal is to align with and learn from a
broader array of partners who are testing their own
approaches to enhancing agricultural
productivity in Africa.
Our alliance hopes to bring together these partners and
bring together grantees with public and private sector
partners using money, expertise, and networks to
help improve the lives of some of the poorest people in some
of the poorest parts of the world.
This model of strategic collaboration purposefully
divides the commitments to seek more leverage around a
single problem until the work can be taken to scale.
A different example is our initiative in the city of New
Orleans as it struggles to recover from the devastation
of Hurricane Katrina.
When the storm struck the Gulf Coast in the summer of 2005,
as we all know, it exposed a horrifying degree of grinding
poverty and entrenched poverty suffered by a population that
had very long ago been left behind way before the storm
waters receded.
At first, the Rockefeller Foundation, along with many
others, gave grants for immediate help
for shelter and relief.
Then months went by as city and state authorities tried to
pull together a substantial, coordinated plan for the
city's redevelopment.
But by last spring, the planning process had run into
a terrible logjam a logjam caused by a desperate shortage
of public resources, a great deal of frustration and
uncertainty, many to many competing interests, and not
enough incentive to compromise.
At the Rockefeller foundation, we saw that logjam and an
impasse building that would affect thousands of poor and
vulnerable people.
On short notice, we jumped in to help jump start a unified,
inclusive, and cooperative planning process, using our
influence as well as our money.
The funds would be instrumental in assuring that
New Orleans would be able to tap into critically needed
federal funds for long term recovery that could not be
released until a plan was in place.
We hope that breaking bottlenecks where we can will
become a signature of our new way of working.
Our New Orleans initiative helped pull together players
with different and competing interests, including the mayor
and city council, the governor, the Louisiana
Recovery Authority, and representatives of more than
70 neighborhoods throughout the city.
When it was time, it provided funds for hiring new
leadership to carry out the recovery
plan once it was completed.
And it provided funds to keep plight of New Orleans on the
national political agenda.
This initiative in New Orleans was and still is a gamble.
The politics are bitter, and the chances for failure are
still real.
But we knew that we had the resources and the convening
power and, we hope, the credibility to make a
difference.
We hired a community development expert as a new
program officer specifically for this project, and just for
a few years.
She was someone well versed in the
complexities of urban planning.
She moved to New Orleans to help administer the grant and
to shepherd the planning process.
With her role, complete as it will be in only a few years,
she will become the Senior Vice President for Programs of
the Greater New Orleans Foundation, extending our
commitment to build local capacity on the ground.
Importantly, all of this was planned at the beginning of
the philanthropic investment.
We knew from the outset that as time goes by, our ability
to have impact would level off.
Others would have to step in and would gladly stepped in,
we hope, to push the process forward.
And therefore, we planned carefully and transparently at
the start for how our commitment in New
Orleans would end.
I'll take one more quick example to show you some of
the array of strategies these initiatives will undertake.
This is quite a different example.
In the past few months, the Rockefeller Foundation
launched an initiative called Innovation for Development.
Many social innovators are experimenting, some with great
results, and there is so much that we can learn from them.
But the challenge is to create systems of innovation that
work for poor people by promoting greater access to
the use of innovative methods, innovation methods, and tools.
and resources for those who are working on the needs of
poor and vulnerable people.
The initiative will highlight and promote testing of
innovation models--
typically, these are models arising
from the private sector--
and apply them to our problems, fund several
applications of each model to the problems of
the developing world.
Models that have had demonstrated success in the
private sector, for example--
but this is not a full list-- include crowdsourcing,
participatory or user driven innovations, publicly held and
freely available platform technologies or data banks,
patent databases and technology landscapes that can
guide innovators towards tools in the public domain and help
them avoid the thickets created by proprietary rights.
To take just one example--
and this is an example of the
crowdsourcing innovation model--
we are partnering with InnoCentive,
of a private company.
It uses the web to find and reward innovators from around
the globe who can develop solutions to science and
technology issues that companies faced.
We are now applying it to issues facing development that
will solve problems for poor people.
We support the seekers, those with the problem to be solved,
to use InnoCentive's website for posting problems that need
solutions, an assay to be developed, a low cost delivery
device, a low electricity using instrument.
And we offer a monetary reward to the solver who
provides the answer.
InnoCentive's registered solvers are 150,000 science
and technology experts around the world.
They submit solutions, and the winning solver collects the
reward if the problem is solved successfully.
It's a very exciting new model, and it's one of the
many that we hope to demonstrate, make available,
and make it applicable to the problems of
the developing world.
Throughout the next year, we'll be announcing other new
initiatives in health, in focusing on the economic
insecurity of the American worker, and on adaptation and
resilience in the face of climate change.
Another critical component of our philanthropy 3.0 point oh
is measurement to assess impact.
Our sector must focus some attention on issues and places
not only where we know the needs are great and the
problems are profound, because there are so many, but where
we honestly believe that we can have measurable impact.
As such, each new Rockefeller initiative is now designed
with a clear timeframe, identified activities and
products, specified learning outcomes, and a
projected end point.
You can see in the agricultural and in the New
Orleans two very different examples.
In New Orleans, we expected an exponential curve.
Our impact was going to be felt most at the beginning and
our ability to have impact would level off over time.
So a short term, clear initiative.
In AGRA, the Green Revolution in Africa, we expect a more
linear set of timeframes here.
We will need to keep building over time to
maximize the impact.
So here, a longer timeframe, a broader time horizon,
specified in each case in advance.
Will we take risks?
Of course.
Will every important outcome be easily measured?
Certainly not.
We can't, of course, focus only on that which is
measurable, or we will distort our philanthropy.
But we must absolutely recognize that the outcomes of
our investments really do matter.
We have to learn what works and why and how it works in
order to gain real leverage and build capacity in the work
of this sector.
That's what it will take to do really great work.
So philanthropy 3.0, for us, that means seeking innovation
and influence and impact supported by the pillars of
our time honored traditions.
We intend to be bold.
We intend to learn and change and learn again.
Just as the software designers here in Silicon Valley must
retool their programs to keep up with the changing times, so
must all of us adapt our philanthropic models, adapt
our new ways of thinking to incorporate new technologies
to monitor and then address local and global realities as
they emerge to grasp new opportunities, to seek new
opportunities.
Old institutions are experimenting with new
structures.
The public and private sectors are coming together in
experimental new forms of burgeoning numbers of public
and private partnerships.
We were privileged to participate in the formation
of many of those in vaccine investment, in searching for
new vaccines for some of the most dreaded diseases in the
developing world.
But there are many, many other examples that you'll hear
about and discuss at this meeting.
Venture philanthropy, philanthropaneurs are another
buzz word of the day, especially out
here in the Bay Area.
Whatever you call it, one thing is very clear, and Jane
mentioned it already.
Capital is being used more strategically, and leverage is
more critical than ever.
And it will be incumbent on all of us to figure out how to
get that leverage from much of the work that we do.
Whatever the label, whatever the structure, something
radically new and something very exciting is happening
within our sector.
At the Rockefeller Foundation, we've chosen a new structure
that's right for us.
But our model assumes that there are many other forms of
philanthropic giving.
In fact, our model depends on that.
We have come to realize that among our most valuable
assets, not only our money, but the networks that we have
formed on the ground throughout the world.
That includes NGOs of all sorts, beneficiaries directly,
experts, other foundations and partners from the world of
philanthropy and government, and the private sector sharing
knowledge, sharing expertise, and above all sharing a
profound sense of commitment to the
importance of this work.
This region has been a laboratory of new ideas and
inspiration and know-how.
This fall, I met with Larry Brilliant, a visionary force
you've already heard from this morning.
I had the pleasure of meeting with Iqbal Paroo from the
Omidyar Network and Sally Ossberg of the Skoll
Foundation.
And I look forward to getting to know and learn from so many
of you over the next months and years.
We are excited about trying new ways of working.
And as Larry himself told The New York Times, "Rockefeller
is almost the country's oldest foundation, and we're almost
the newest. And we've come to almost identical conclusions
about the way to address the world's problems." That's very
exciting for both of us.
And so we have a lot to learn from one another
and for many of you.
I think it is really clear as we get to philanthropy 3.0
that no single player can solve these
major problems alone.
This is a dynamic and complex and globalizing world.
And we've got to seek solutions to these complex
problems together, seeking advice from and pooling
resources with other foundations, seeking local
knowledge and insight from people on the ground, and
partnering with experts in the public and private sectors.
As you participate in this conference over the next few
days, I challenge you to think about the creative new ways
that you can approach your work, how you can widen your
circle of partners to get the job done.
The Rockefeller Foundation has been enormously reinvigorated
by fresh thinking.
The work has been and continues to be absolutely
exhilarating.
We are beginning to think about our centennial, which is
just a few years away.
And sometimes that kind of milestone can be a focus on
the past. And often it is done so both
proudly, but also wistfully.
But I am pleased to say that we don't see it that way.
Our focus is squarely on our future.
We are optimistic about the ability of philanthropy 3.0 to
reduce vulnerability, to increase resilience for
millions of poor people worldwide.
Working with many of you to change the world is going to
be a great experience.
And we will do it in important and passionate ways.
Because sometimes the passion has come out of the work.
So let us recommit ourselves to new ways of working and new
ways of thinking and new ways of partnering and a lot of
mutual learning so that we're not spending and wasting money
reinventing mistakes that others have already made and
that many of us could learn from.
I look forward to getting to know you, as I said, and to
hearing from many of you.
If we don't have the chance to talk at the meeting, call me
or email me.
My colleague, Jackie Khor, from the foundation is here.
But I thank you very much for your attention.
This is going to be just a sensational meeting.
This is a sensational time for what we do.
Thank you.

JANE WALES: Thank you, Judith.
Very shortly, your lunch is going to come to you.
But I think we have a chance to just maybe field three
questions for Judith.
And then of course you'll take advantage of the hallway
conversations to ask her more.
JUDITH RODIN: Yes, in the back?

AUDIENCE: Olga Alexeeva from the Charities Aid Foundation
from London.
Do you see a potential for philanthropy 4.0 where
philanthropy will have a global face,
not just global reach?

And I know there are very few people here still who come
from traditionally recipient countries and who are new
philanthropists.
And how would you see the Rockefeller Foundation view on
philanthropy coming from East and south
JUDITH RODIN: I think clearly we're going to have a very
significant in vivo experience as we watch China activate
itself in Africa.
So we will we will certainly see intentional philanthropy
and political aspiration come together in work in areas in
which many of us have been active for quite a long time.
I think philanthropy 3.0 will continue to build out a bit as
these other players from other parts of the world really get
themselves into strategic philanthropy as opposed to aid
and trade kinds of relationships.
And that will lead to philanthropy 4.0, what you've
said, the kind of global face of it.
But we can't drive that global face from the West. We've got
to learn from what's happening in the East and the South and
then be part of, participants in, this next phase of
philanthropy, philanthropy 4.0.
Which will also, I think, be transformed by much more--
and I've said this a couple of times, but I really want to
highlight it--
much more being on the ground and listening to the
beneficiaries.
We know that the NGO and civil society
community is on the ground.
But to some degree, they too are intermediaries between
some of the larger philanthropies and the
beneficiaries.
And so creating that network of sources of information,
including the beneficiaries themselves, as we have found
enormously helpful in the work that we're doing on the Green
Revolution in Africa, where the farmers themselves are
critical part of the community of experts that are being
activated as this work rolls out.
Yes?

AUDIENCE: Nathan Grey, Earth Train.
If the grants are the head of the hammer, how about the
handle of the hammer, your investment Portfolio Does 3.0
contemplate increasing, for example, deployment of program
related Investments
JUDITH RODIN: I think that is the question of the day for
philanthropy.
We have had a very significant experiment, actually, that
Jackie Khor has been leading for us using a set of funds
that we have put aside called ProVenEx to do from our
program resources the kind of more expansive social
investing that has been talked about.
In our endowment, we continue to focus on voting proxies and
voting where we have direct access and line of sight to
our investments in some degree of negative screening, and
much more importantly, in our alternative investments, where
we have a direct line of sight on pro-social investing.
But this is an area that we are continuing to learn from
others, to expand.
We have a big board learning on this topic,
actually, in June.
And so many of you are ahead of us, actually, in thinking
about this.
And we have a lot to learn.
And we look forward to that.

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

groups are working, and other groups are working.
Thank you.
That helped a lot.
I tried to just cup my hands, but that was much better.
You talked about the synergy of getting these groups
working together, and you explained a lot about the
Rockefeller Foundation's efforts.
I understand too that you've begun working in a partnership
with other large foundations, four in New York City and one
in Chicago and one on the West Coast to examine each other's
efforts and proposals to work in African universities.
JUDITH RODIN: That's right.
AUDIENCE: And develop this intellectual capital.
That seemed to be a new mark.
Is that part of the 3.0, or is that 4.0?
And would you describe to us the importance of partnerships
together with other foundations?
JUDITH RODIN: Absolutely.
I can't take credit for that.
That occurred before I arrived at Rockefeller.
So it's the buildup to and the learning from that that in
part led to the new philanthropy 3.0.
But for the last five and 1/2 years, we've been privileged
to be part of a partnership with the Ford Foundation,
MacArthur, Carnegie, Mellon, Hewlett, now
Kresge just came in.
And anybody who wants to join is welcome.
We are trying to reanimate African universities.
Many of these were great institutions in the '60s '70s.
And many foundations and many governments made significant
investments.
And they were decimated in the late '70s and
'80s and early '90s.
And so the effort to rebuild, to create local knowledge,
local research capacity, local entrepreneurship is so
critical if the African continent is to revive itself
more systematically.
So this is to put more feet on the ground using as one access
point the research university.
It's certainly not the only one.
Interestingly, and this is a kind of important recognition,
we knew that it might take billions of dollars to try to
rebuild the libraries, to catch them up.
And so instead, we bought part of a satellite company.
And we're giving them access to broadband.
Which of course in this audience probably isn't a
great aha experience.
But for some of us Eastern troglodytes, it really was.
And so and they have access now through the internet.
And they are bringing on-- the number of partner universities
are partnering with a broad swath of public and private
universities in each of their countries.
And we may leapfrog if cell phones and the like move to
the new kind of technology that will be important for
this continent.
And those that aren't currently wired
may really not suffer.
But this is a very, very exciting partnership.
And we are already seeing the elements of
that capacity building.
One sentence, because again, it's such a new way of
thinking for many of us.
And I, as you can see from my biography, was
a university president.
For many of us, we had a very proud period of educating
foreign students from around the world.
And we all have been the beneficiaries of having that.
And so finding the right mix in this new kind of
initiative, because many of those students don't go home.
So finding the right mix of continuing to be a place where
foreign students are educated in the United States, but with
our philanthropy thinking more intentionally about how to
build local capacity in the countries in which we work is
going to be a very, very important component to getting
this development puzzle solved.
JANE WALES: Thank you very much.
JUDITH RODIN: Thank you
JANE WALES: Please join me in thanking Judith Rodin.
JUDITH RODIN: Thanks so much.
JANE WALES: And let me just--
I'm just going to ask Jackie Khor to stand up so you know
to ask her questions.
Jackie?

Jackie has headed up the efforts at the Rockefeller
Foundation to invest and make equity investments in, among
other things, pharmaceuticals that will develop vaccines and
treatments for the diseases of the poor.
So I know that she will welcome your
thoughts and your questions.
Again, thank you so much, Judith.
JUDITH RODIN: Thank you.
JANE WALES: And please enjoy your lunch together.