How 'moonshot' grants can change the world

Other philanthropic foundations, however, are increasingly “going big”, seeking to make system change through larger, ambitious projects that require years of funding, commitment and evolution. 

In the sector, this is known as a “moonshot”.

At the recent Philanthropy Australia conference in Adelaide, Australia, James Chen, from the Chen Yet-Sen Family Foundation, spoke enthusiastically about moonshot giving.

His foundation has been working for years on Clearly, a global campaign to enable access to glasses for everyone in the world who needs them, as well as working towards universal access to affordable wider eye care. 

A study sponsored by Clearly found that reading glasses provided, on average, a 21.7% boost to productivity for over-40s, rising to 31.6% for over-50s. According to its website, “If glasses were given to everyone who needed them in India’s entire crop sector, it would mean an extra US$19 billion from productivity gains alone.”

Providing glasses for everybody who needs them – estimated at 2.2 billion people globally. That’s a moonshot.

Of course, the image of a moonshot also suggests an element of risk and Jenna Palumbo from the Minderoo Foundation acknowledged this in a panel discussion with Chen, saying: “Failure and pain are a necessary part of thinking big.”

Mr Chen agreed.

"Most moonshots fail because they are not given enough time. We must be willing to embrace uncertainty, take calculated risks and invest in bold ideas that may not always guarantee success but hold the potential for transformative change,” he said.

In Australia, some of the largest philanthropic foundations are leaning into moonshots, setting their sights on system change, rather than individual projects to help a group of people here, or a community there – although such giving also remains essential in the here and now. 

The increasing urgency of the need to combat climate change has led philanthropists to argue that the time for “business as usual” giving is over. Some philanthropists at the Adelaide conference even discussed the need to spend down their foundation’s corpus, to make a bigger impact now, and in one hit for genuine cut through, rather than nursing the philanthropic war chest by making smaller contributions over the longer period.

It doesn’t always have to be that dramatic; however, moonshot philanthropy does demand years and require committed funding, expertise and support over that time to have a chance.

Philanthropists say the key is to lock in for the time frame and not blink, even when results might not immediately appear. The idea is to attempt to solve real problems at the source, tackling the world’s biggest issues.

Children’s Ground is an astonishing endeavour backed by moonshot giving from several big philanthropists, along with a long list of other partners and supporters.

The aim is to spend 25 years developing an evidence-based approach to truly handing over learning, family health and wellbeing, economic and community development, and creative and cultural development and wellbeing back to First Nations people.

It’s the First Nations leaders and communities who are doing and will do the work to creative generational change. To succeed, the endeavour has asked for a quarter-century of support and belief from the funders. 

In an interview with me late last year, Children’s Ground CEO Jane Vadiveloo said long-term results are the name of the game.

"It’s not about outputs and it’s not about how many people come through the door on a given day or week – these are markers that are often given to or requested by funders, but they don’t tell the story of change or impact, often they’re just window dressing. We must create deep and enduring change with accountability to the people and share this in a meaningful way with our partners.”

Another fascinating moonshot is Watertrust Australia – a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to improving water policy process, and backed by funders including The Ian Potter Foundation, The Myer Foundation, The Ross Trust, The Besen Family Foundation and the Colonial Foundation, among others. 

Watertrust was created when the Potter and Myer Foundations asked Deloitte consultants to research how, or whether, they could genuinely impact the divisive, unsatisfactory blockage that was Australian water policy deliberation.

As the Murray Darling Basin choked, alongside other disturbing issues in the management and distribution of freshwater, Australia’s most precious natural resource, the foundations’ leaders wanted to know if there was a way to move past the endless arguments and lack of cohesive policy, at all levels of government.

The answer was that funding needed to be substantial and provided for at least a decade, with Watertrust’s experts in policy process given unwavering support and time to win trust across the various parties in the sector and then bring new policy creation tools to the debate.

True independence has been essential, so Watertrust can act impartially, speaking openly to all stakeholders without “a dog in the fight”, as it were.

By introducing world’s best practice process knowledge and expert negotiation, evidence gathering and presentation skills, Watertrust has started to influence discussions leading to better policy, where previously there had been only crossed arms and unreturned phone calls.

The organisation is just beginning its fourth year, has established its foundations and intends to accelerate its involvements and results from here.