Philanthropic organizations and private investors have radically transformed the civic innovation landscape. They are an important part of the civic innovation ecosystem -- a community of actors that propels new relationships between the public and the local governments that serve them in order to make our cities better places to live. As we’ve documented elsewhere, it can be difficult for government staffers to get support from elected officials for innovative projects. In other cases, innovation is constrained by limited resources and concerns about negative attention if an approach doesn’t work in expected ways, or if a solution fails outright. Funding from private sources can play an important role in giving local governments the space to experiment with new ways of doing things, and in sponsoring third parties to develop tools that will help local governments and others engage the community in new ways. But this can only happen if investors sponsor both the development of new technological tools and support the adoption of those technologies through the funding of institutions and programs that render tools meaningful.
Until now, it’s been difficult to get a handle on which funders are supporting which projects and why, in order to determine how to leverage these commitments more effectively. Though it fails to address the larger supporting infrastructure for technological civic innovation tools, in a first-of-its-kind report entitled “The Emergence of Civic Tech: Investments in a Growing Field”, the Knight Foundation tries to map these connections, and chart a path forward for funding in the civic technology field. Using data analytics and network analysis, the report visualizes the connections between funders of different tools, identifying funding clusters in eleven areas within the larger categories of open government and community action.
This funding is crucial. Modern technology adoption is especially difficult in government given public pressures for governments to be good stewards of taxpayer money, concerns about large initial investments in technologies that may become obsolete, skepticism about the power of technology to transform the way that governments relate to their residents, and lack of capacity and skills to use technologies effectively. As a result, the work of organizations that promote civic innovation in municipal government -- both through funding and other types of support -- is critical if technologies are to be used to build good relationships between the public and the governments that serve them.
The Knight report documents $430 million distributed by 237 different investors to the civic technology sector in just over two years (January 2011 to May 2013). The majority of this funding ($240 million) went toward peer-to-peer sharing technologies, while no other cluster area came close. While these figures may at first seem large, they are actually very small when compared with investments in other types of technology. Consider that social media tools without a civic engagement agenda have garnered billions of dollars of investment, and that products like Snapchat, Pinterest and Twitter have valuations in the billions of dollars without making a profit.
Like these tools, civic technology is still a nascent field. Funded civic technologies cited in the report were quite new -- around three years old, though even the projects in the cluster areas identified as “the most mature” ranged between five and seven years of existence. Even within this relatively short amount of time, a few projects have become dominant within each cluster. For example, within the Neighborhood Forums cluster, NextDoor has received a disproportionate share of the overall funding.
Furthermore, $430 million across 237 investors is also quite small when one considers that there are significant costs beyond creating technologies. Building a community of users and establishing relationships takes resources. The Knight report doesn’t document funding for organizations that aren’t explicitly developing technologies, but we can imagine that the combined funding for research and community-building is far less than the technology investments themselves.
Over four-fifths of the funding examined in the report comes from private capital, and the Knight Foundation urges better coordination and collaboration between philanthropic organizations and private investors. At present, private capital tends to flow into consumption-related civic technologies, while philanthropic dollars dominate open government investments. Other tools -- such as public decision-making and voting technologies -- receive far less funding. The Knight report suggests greater investment in these areas by foundations.
But more can be done to leverage philanthropic investments. In passing, the report recommends greater emphasis on policy work that can aid use of civic technologies. Certainly that is just as important as funding particular initiatives. But it’s also considerably more difficult than action on the part of philanthropic organizations alone.
The report leaves out much that surrounds the civic technologies comprising the examined clusters. Unfortunately, the Knight report excludes “organizations funded to support advocacy, research, events, and other purposes related to civic tech but not directly tied to building tech-related projects”. In addition, it’s not clear from the data collection methodology if all civic technology projects are included. Local governments, residents, community organizations and other actors in the civic innovation space must be empowered to use civic technology effectively. The work of Grassroots Grantmakers and others illustrates this idea.
Civic technology is not a “if you build it, they will come” proposition. Adoption and change require investment in learning to use civic technology effectively, a long-term process that involves deep relationships in the community, coordination from City Hall, and trust. And once empowered, residents must have the resources and tools to couple technologies with offline engagement. Philanthropic organizations can play an important role in making this happen. It’s time to end the practice of thinking about civic innovation in terms of technology alone and to consider the larger ecosystem that supports it.![Publication Image]( "Publication Image")
Until now, it’s been difficult to get a handle on which funders are supporting which projects and why, in order to determine how to leverage these commitments more effectively. Though it fails to address the larger supporting infrastructure for technological civic innovation tools, in a first-of-its-kind report entitled “The Emergence of Civic Tech: Investments in a Growing Field”, the Knight Foundation tries to map these connections, and chart a path forward for funding in the civic technology field. Using data analytics and network analysis, the report visualizes the connections between funders of different tools, identifying funding clusters in eleven areas within the larger categories of open government and community action.
This funding is crucial. Modern technology adoption is especially difficult in government given public pressures for governments to be good stewards of taxpayer money, concerns about large initial investments in technologies that may become obsolete, skepticism about the power of technology to transform the way that governments relate to their residents, and lack of capacity and skills to use technologies effectively. As a result, the work of organizations that promote civic innovation in municipal government -- both through funding and other types of support -- is critical if technologies are to be used to build good relationships between the public and the governments that serve them.
The Knight report documents $430 million distributed by 237 different investors to the civic technology sector in just over two years (January 2011 to May 2013). The majority of this funding ($240 million) went toward peer-to-peer sharing technologies, while no other cluster area came close. While these figures may at first seem large, they are actually very small when compared with investments in other types of technology. Consider that social media tools without a civic engagement agenda have garnered billions of dollars of investment, and that products like Snapchat, Pinterest and Twitter have valuations in the billions of dollars without making a profit.
Like these tools, civic technology is still a nascent field. Funded civic technologies cited in the report were quite new -- around three years old, though even the projects in the cluster areas identified as “the most mature” ranged between five and seven years of existence. Even within this relatively short amount of time, a few projects have become dominant within each cluster. For example, within the Neighborhood Forums cluster, NextDoor has received a disproportionate share of the overall funding.
Furthermore, $430 million across 237 investors is also quite small when one considers that there are significant costs beyond creating technologies. Building a community of users and establishing relationships takes resources. The Knight report doesn’t document funding for organizations that aren’t explicitly developing technologies, but we can imagine that the combined funding for research and community-building is far less than the technology investments themselves.
Over four-fifths of the funding examined in the report comes from private capital, and the Knight Foundation urges better coordination and collaboration between philanthropic organizations and private investors. At present, private capital tends to flow into consumption-related civic technologies, while philanthropic dollars dominate open government investments. Other tools -- such as public decision-making and voting technologies -- receive far less funding. The Knight report suggests greater investment in these areas by foundations.
But more can be done to leverage philanthropic investments. In passing, the report recommends greater emphasis on policy work that can aid use of civic technologies. Certainly that is just as important as funding particular initiatives. But it’s also considerably more difficult than action on the part of philanthropic organizations alone.
The report leaves out much that surrounds the civic technologies comprising the examined clusters. Unfortunately, the Knight report excludes “organizations funded to support advocacy, research, events, and other purposes related to civic tech but not directly tied to building tech-related projects”. In addition, it’s not clear from the data collection methodology if all civic technology projects are included. Local governments, residents, community organizations and other actors in the civic innovation space must be empowered to use civic technology effectively. The work of Grassroots Grantmakers and others illustrates this idea.
Civic technology is not a “if you build it, they will come” proposition. Adoption and change require investment in learning to use civic technology effectively, a long-term process that involves deep relationships in the community, coordination from City Hall, and trust. And once empowered, residents must have the resources and tools to couple technologies with offline engagement. Philanthropic organizations can play an important role in making this happen. It’s time to end the practice of thinking about civic innovation in terms of technology alone and to consider the larger ecosystem that supports it.
Screenshot from Knight's The Emergence of Civic Tech: Investments in a Growing Field Report.