As I think about our discussions from the second class, what resonated strongly with me is the relatively limited voice of one key kind of stakeholder: the beneficiaries or constituents of the non-profit’s programs.  In fact, the Oprah and Koch Brothers case studies that we explored revealed the paradox that the more a non-profit’s activities are funded by a single wealthy donor, the less influence the beneficiaries ultimately have in the structure or implementation of the programs, even when the general mission of the organization appears to be shared by both the funder and the beneficiaries.  So in the example of Oprah’s “Dream School” for girls, although the mission was to dramatically improve the education of girls in South Africa, Oprah’s preoccupation with generating quick and conspicuous results in an effort to boost her global “brand” led her to essentially disregard the wishes of virtually all key South African stakeholders, who preferred that Oprah’s donations be distributed more widely across the country’s education system.

I think that technology allows certain kinds of non-profits to “democratize” the design and selection of programs with crucial input from the beneficiaries/constituents by using an internet voting mechanism to determine what programs to fund.  This week, one of the largest grant-making organizations in NYC, the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) rolled out a “Shape Your Jewish New York” initiative where all UJA constituents (which includes pretty much anyone who is on UJA’s email list) could vote for one of four program finalists to receive a $250,000 “big idea” grant from UJA.  The idea was to let regular New Yorkers (as opposed to the UJA Board or program directors) to decide which project was worth funding.  I think that such programs can help beneficiary stakeholders exert more influence, as long as there is accountability that the wishes of the beneficiaries will be honored, rather than a “secret decision” by influential donors to fund another program anyway.