Algo-r-(h)-i-(y)-thms, 2018. Installation view at ON AIR, Tomás Saraceno's solo exhibition at Palais de Tokyo, Paris, 2018. Photo by Alina Grubnyak.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest within philanthropy toward driving systems change and addressing root causes of societal issues. Understanding the different approaches and the underlying ways of thinking (mental models) behind these strategies is crucial for their effective implementation.

In June 2024, Jewlya Lynn, Ph.D., from PolicySolve, and Julia Coffman, M.S., from the Center for Evaluation Innovation, published an article titled "Passing in the Dark: Making Visible Philanthropy's Hidden and Conflicting Mental Models for Systems Change" in The Foundation Review, a publication of the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University. This article looks at the different ways foundations think about and approach systems change, and how these different approaches affect their strategies and success. 

Lynn and Coffman discuss the increasing recognition in philanthropy that addressing societal issues requires systemic change. They identify two prevalent mental models for systems change in the philanthropic sector: systems dynamics and systems emergence. 

• The systems-dynamics model focuses on identifying high-leverage points within a system to predict and influence change, often using data-driven approaches to identify these points and measure impact. 

• In contrast, the systems-emergence model embraces the complexity of systems, encouraging experimentation and adaptability without relying on predictability, often leveraging real-time data and feedback to guide decision-making.

The article emphasizes that these mental models significantly impact the effectiveness of philanthropic strategies. Foundations must understand and align their strategies with the appropriate mental model to match the complexity and nature of the systems they aim to change. This alignment involves integrating data collection and analysis to continuously evaluate and adjust strategies. Misalignment or unacknowledged conflicting models can derail efforts and lead to ineffective interventions. The authors provide examples of foundation strategies employing each model and offer tools for better alignment, including the use of data and evaluation to support strategic adjustments.

Below we provide three takeaways from the piece relevant for the DATA4Philanthropy Network:

• Awareness and Adaptability: Integrating comprehensive data collection and evaluation methods allows foundations to continually assess and refine their approaches, ensuring they remain relevant and effective as conditions change. Being aware of which mental model is in use and why is crucial for effectiveness. Building capacity to adapt strategies, grant-making, and evaluation approaches based on the complexity and specific characteristics of the systems is essential.

• Alignment of Mental Models and Strategies: Foundations need to ensure that their mental models for systems change align with their strategies, tools, and the nature of the systems they are addressing. Misalignment can lead to ineffective interventions and wasted resources.

• Embracing Complexity: The systems-emergence model, though less commonly used, offers valuable insights into embracing complexity and adaptability. It encourages localized, community-driven change and continuous learning, which can be particularly effective in addressing deeply entrenched societal issues. Using detailed data and evaluation practices can help track progress, identify emerging patterns, and guide adaptive strategies in real-time.

The full article can be found here.

***

What other topics would you like to see on DATA4Philanthropy? Let us know by emailing us at DATA4Philanthropy@thegovlab.org. Or, do you know of any great case studies that should be featured on the platform?

Submit a case study to the DATA4Philanthropy website here.

Stay up-to-date on the latest blog posts by signing up for the DATA4Philanthropy Network here.