Lessons for Philanthropy from An In-kind Donation: The ‘Men Read’ Program
posted on: Monday, April 20, 2009
By Niki Jagpal
The Foundation Center’s Philanthropy News Digest Blog, PhilanTopic features a March 30 story from Jolene Constance, assistant warden at the C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center in Louisiana, a state-run prison for adult males. Titled Grants that Make a Difference, Constance’s story isn’t about a monetary grant; instead, she shares a story about a donation of books to the prison by the Louisville, KY-based National Center for Family Literacy and the National Center for Family Literacy in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. PhilanTopic describes the books as “an instrument of change and opportunity.” The two grantmakers donated some 1,000 books on National Family Literacy Day weekend and alternating weekends during the month of November. The books went to children of incarcerated men, who read them to their children when they visit.
As Constance’s story notes, children of imprisoned parents are the “silent victims of crime”: monetary or logistical constraints can limit the number of visits that are possible with their parents who they do not see as ‘offenders’ but simply as loved ones from whom they are removed. As the story notes, an imprisoned father reading to his child “facilitates reconciliation and a bonding experience that is rare in a prison setting.” A second impact of the donated books is equally important – they “bridge literacy barriers” by helping to remove the stigma frequently associated with lower literacy level books read by incarcerated people. Because these men read the same books in literacy classes, instead of being seen as less educated, they’re now seen as "caring parents." The most important part of Constance’s story is worth quoting verbatim:
"What makes this particular grant a good example of the effective use of philanthropic funds?
It has been proven that children of incarcerated parents are at greater risk of becoming offenders themselves. By breaking that link, we can save a whole generation of young people from becoming adjudicated offenders, reduce the number of crime victims, and save taxpayer dollars now spent to house offenders. Rebuilding relationships between offenders who are being discharged and their families is priceless. If offenders are committed to their families, they are less likely to recidivate and more likely to become productive members of society, which means one less single parent household due to incarceration, one less family seeking financial support from government entities, and one less victim of a senseless crime."
I couldn’t agree more: this is effective and strategic philanthropy. In addition to the issues noted in this story, The Sentencing Project and the Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009 include statistics and other related information about the United States’ “criminal justice system.” As noted on the Measure of America website under "factoids" section, measured in absolute numbers, we have more of our citizens in prisons than any other country in the world; we comprise five percent of the world’s people but our incarcerated men and women make up close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners; and the average education level among our imprisoned population is only 11 years of schooling. And our recidivism rate is about two-thirds per among released ex-offenders. Something doesn’t quite add up here, does it?
Offenders and ex-offenders were among the 11 special populations we analyzed in developing our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. As we highlighted in our analysis, even when defining marginalized communities so broadly, only $1 out of every $3 could be classified as benefitting these groups in the aggregate. In analyzing foundation giving for offenders and ex-offenders, giving that benefits this group comprised only 0.7 percent of total foundation giving from the 2004-2006 time period and we found notable variability among the top 25 funders. As a proportion of overall giving, the range for the top five funders for work that seeks to benefit offenders and ex-offenders was 14.7-57.7 percent. And unfortunately, the top funder of this work, the JEHT Foundation, which was among the many foundations victimized by Bernard Madoff, is now out of business.
The “Men Read” program offers one example of exemplary philanthropy in action but considering the scope of the problem, institutional philanthropy has a real opportunity to become more effective and strategic by targeting its grant dollars to benefit offenders and ex-offenders. Especially with the JEHT Foundation’s demise, will your foundation rise to this challenge? Will you consider prioritizing this group in your grantmaking? Not only would our imprisoned citizens, their families and children benefit from such strategic grantmaking, all of us would fare better. Each of us, especially children of imprisoned citizens, would see a more level playing field and have more reason to hope for social advancement and inclusion.
Does your institution or you have a compelling story like the “Men Read” program? We’d love to hear from you if you do so we can highlight the important contributions of your grantmaking in making the world more just for all of us.
Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at NCRP.
Labels: ex-offenders, offenders, Philanthropy at Its Best, social inclusion, Social justice philanthropy, targeted universalism, values
By Niki Jagpal
The Foundation Center’s Philanthropy News Digest Blog, PhilanTopic features a March 30 story from Jolene Constance, assistant warden at the C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center in Louisiana, a state-run prison for adult males. Titled Grants that Make a Difference, Constance’s story isn’t about a monetary grant; instead, she shares a story about a donation of books to the prison by the Louisville, KY-based National Center for Family Literacy and the National Center for Family Literacy in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. PhilanTopic describes the books as “an instrument of change and opportunity.” The two grantmakers donated some 1,000 books on National Family Literacy Day weekend and alternating weekends during the month of November. The books went to children of incarcerated men, who read them to their children when they visit.
As Constance’s story notes, children of imprisoned parents are the “silent victims of crime”: monetary or logistical constraints can limit the number of visits that are possible with their parents who they do not see as ‘offenders’ but simply as loved ones from whom they are removed. As the story notes, an imprisoned father reading to his child “facilitates reconciliation and a bonding experience that is rare in a prison setting.” A second impact of the donated books is equally important – they “bridge literacy barriers” by helping to remove the stigma frequently associated with lower literacy level books read by incarcerated people. Because these men read the same books in literacy classes, instead of being seen as less educated, they’re now seen as "caring parents." The most important part of Constance’s story is worth quoting verbatim:
"What makes this particular grant a good example of the effective use of philanthropic funds?
It has been proven that children of incarcerated parents are at greater risk of becoming offenders themselves. By breaking that link, we can save a whole generation of young people from becoming adjudicated offenders, reduce the number of crime victims, and save taxpayer dollars now spent to house offenders. Rebuilding relationships between offenders who are being discharged and their families is priceless. If offenders are committed to their families, they are less likely to recidivate and more likely to become productive members of society, which means one less single parent household due to incarceration, one less family seeking financial support from government entities, and one less victim of a senseless crime."
I couldn’t agree more: this is effective and strategic philanthropy. In addition to the issues noted in this story, The Sentencing Project and the Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009 include statistics and other related information about the United States’ “criminal justice system.” As noted on the Measure of America website under "factoids" section, measured in absolute numbers, we have more of our citizens in prisons than any other country in the world; we comprise five percent of the world’s people but our incarcerated men and women make up close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners; and the average education level among our imprisoned population is only 11 years of schooling. And our recidivism rate is about two-thirds per among released ex-offenders. Something doesn’t quite add up here, does it?
Offenders and ex-offenders were among the 11 special populations we analyzed in developing our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. As we highlighted in our analysis, even when defining marginalized communities so broadly, only $1 out of every $3 could be classified as benefitting these groups in the aggregate. In analyzing foundation giving for offenders and ex-offenders, giving that benefits this group comprised only 0.7 percent of total foundation giving from the 2004-2006 time period and we found notable variability among the top 25 funders. As a proportion of overall giving, the range for the top five funders for work that seeks to benefit offenders and ex-offenders was 14.7-57.7 percent. And unfortunately, the top funder of this work, the JEHT Foundation, which was among the many foundations victimized by Bernard Madoff, is now out of business.
The “Men Read” program offers one example of exemplary philanthropy in action but considering the scope of the problem, institutional philanthropy has a real opportunity to become more effective and strategic by targeting its grant dollars to benefit offenders and ex-offenders. Especially with the JEHT Foundation’s demise, will your foundation rise to this challenge? Will you consider prioritizing this group in your grantmaking? Not only would our imprisoned citizens, their families and children benefit from such strategic grantmaking, all of us would fare better. Each of us, especially children of imprisoned citizens, would see a more level playing field and have more reason to hope for social advancement and inclusion.
Does your institution or you have a compelling story like the “Men Read” program? We’d love to hear from you if you do so we can highlight the important contributions of your grantmaking in making the world more just for all of us.
Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at NCRP.
Labels: ex-offenders, offenders, Philanthropy at Its Best, social inclusion, Social justice philanthropy, targeted universalism, values
posted by Niki Jagpal at
3:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home