posted on: Friday, March 12, 2010

By Lisa Ranghelli

A week after presenting our findings on the impressive impacts of grassroots organizing and advocacy in Los Angeles to a hundred foundation and nonprofit leaders, I was reminded that the theme of policy innovation we highlighted there continues to ring true. At the event, I spoke about cutting edge policies community leaders developed in Southern California that were emulated elsewhere, such as community benefits agreements. Dr. Bob Ross, CEO of the California Endowment, who described his foundation’s decision to embrace advocacy and systemic change strategies, noted that “Innovation does not scale without dealing with power.” I interpreted his words to mean that you cannot make real changes to systems and institutions without challenging the powerful, and by bringing community power to bear.

L.A. Voice and the PICO National Network are dealing with power, all right!

L.A. Voice, one of 15 organizations we studied in L.A. County, is taking on the banks. On March 5th, as part of a coalition that includes SEIU, National People's Action and the California Reinvestment Coalition, L.A. Voice and PICO helped convince the Los Angeles City Council to pull city funds from irresponsible banks and set new standards for investing public dollars in institutions that offer tangible benefits to the community.

As L.A. Voice faith leader Nathan French put it, "Banks were created for people. People were not created for banks."

The legislation is designed to ensure that taxpayer money is only invested in banks that actively help families keep their homes, expand lending to small businesses to create jobs, end risky derivative deals that put public services at stake and relieve the city's budget gap. According to PICO, the move will save the city at least $10 million immediately.

PICO and its allies will be organizing in communities across the country to promote similar reforms, meeting power with power to replicate this innovative response to the financial crisis.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at NCRP and co-author with Julia Craig of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County.

posted on: Friday, March 05, 2010

By Kevin Laskowski

A gathering of more than 100 leaders in philanthropy marked the release of NCRP’s new Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County. The report documented how 15 Los Angeles-area nonprofit organizations and their allies leveraged foundation grants to secure $6.88 billion in public benefits—nearly $91 of impact for every dollar invested.

In addition to the dramatic findings of the report, participants heard from several Los Angeles grantmakers and nonprofit leaders about their experience with these strategies.

A self-described “convert” to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement strategies, Dr. Robert Ross, president of The California Endowment, discussed how the Endowment’s approach hopes to connect “grassroots and treetops,” combining capital for service provision with the resources for systemic change.

“Let’s be real,” Ross told participants. “With the possible exception of public safety, our opportunity systems are broken. Every time Sacramento or Washington don’t do their jobs, our jobs get harder.”

He acknowledged the limited resources of foundations and the difficult choices that they face in these economic times.

“Every choice we face is a Sophie’s choice,” he said. “It’s tough.”

He urged participants to “lead with results” in making the case for funding advocacy and organizing and applauded NCRP for giving grantmakers another tool to get the biggest bang for their philanthropic buck. He pointed to the importance of the popular mantra “change not charity,” also the tagline for the Liberty Hill Foundation, a noted Los Angeles-area social justice funder.

“I wish I could give you a grant big enough to steal that line,” he said, nodding to Liberty Hill staff in the audience. “Charity is good but change is better.”

Antonia Hernandez, president of the California Community Foundation, noted that her own journey in these strategies was a bit different. The former executive director of MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Hernandez is no recent convert to the importance of funding strategies that effect change.

She explained how important it was to discuss the difficult choices grantmakers face with trustees and educate others about all the options available.

As Los Angeles faced the loss of millions in Section 8 housing vouchers, the board of the community foundation could attempt to devote philanthropic resources to make up the difference.

“Or, for a $50,000 grant, we can fund an advocate to Washington,” she said.

In the same way that nonprofits use litigation, advocacy, organizing, and other strategies, Hernandez said foundations bring the limited resources they’re given to bear on the serious challenges facing Los Angeles and the country as a whole.

Is your foundation interested in learning more about how to effectively support nonprofit advocacy and community organizing? Is your community organization interested in learning more about making the case for advocacy, organizing, or civic engagement? Contact us today!

Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Thursday, January 21, 2010

This week the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced the first grants in its multi-year initiative, Communities Creating Healthy Environments (CCHE). CCHE seeks to reverse the current epidemic of childhood obesity by 2015. Interestingly, rather than funding health care institutions that serve obese youth, RWJF will invest up to $250,000 over three years for each of ten grassroots community organizations that have a track record of advocating and organizing on social, economic and environmental justice issues. Another ten groups will be selected later this year.

The ten organizations will be funded to do what they already do well—engage and organize community residents to become more involved in the policy-making process—with an emphasis on building public support for systemic changes that will help families lead healthier lives. CCHE will help them develop effective interventions to address root causes of childhood obesity in their communities.

Makani Themba-Nixon, CCHE project director, cited 30 years of research demonstrating that neighborhood organizations are critical protective factors in community health, as well as recent evidence that community environments shape community and individual health. Changing environmental conditions, such as lack of access to healthy foods and safe playgrounds in low-income communities, will be central to reducing obesity.

Themba-Nixon knows the value of organizing to change systems from her many years providing technical assistance to grassroots organizations. As executive director of The Praxis Project, she has helped communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice. Prior to that, she led efforts to build the capacity of local and international advocates to address structural racism in public programs and policies. One might assume that an anti-obesity initiative would be headed by a medical or nutrition expert, but RWJF has wisely chosen someone who not only has a background in public health but also understands first hand that the answer does not lie solely on changing individual behaviors but in also empowering individuals to act collectively to change the factors that encourage obesity.

Congratulations to the ten organizations! We are pleased to note that two CCHE grantees were featured in our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project. The recent accomplishments of Southwest Organizing Project are described in Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in New Mexico, and InnerCity Struggle’s intergenerational organizing for education reform will be highlighted in our forthcoming publication (due out March 2nd) on the impacts of organizing and advocacy in Los Angeles County.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Wednesday, September 23, 2009

by Aaron Dorfman

Sometimes a watchdog wags its tail.

People are used to NCRP barking at foundations in our role as watchdog. But today, I want to point out some promising developments that caught my attention the past couple of weeks. The Boston Foundation and the Pittsburgh Foundation both completed new strategic plans recently that merit praise.

The Boston Foundation’s press release about their plan states that the foundation will provide significantly more general operating support in the coming years, rather than favoring restricted project grants. They also intend to provide larger grants over longer periods of time. I can almost hear the nonprofits in Greater Boston shouting, “Hallelujah!”

Previous research by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) and NCRP has shown that long-term general operating support contributes to nonprofit effectiveness and is the kind of support nonprofits value most. GEO’s just-released report, On the Money, once again makes a compelling case for why grantmakers should leave the restrictions behind if they hope to boost nonprofit performance. The Boston Foundation is not the first community foundation to make this shift, and I hope they won’t be the last. Paul Grogan, president and CEO of the foundation, is to be commended for this move.

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, “The Pittsburgh Foundation is broadening its grantmaking — delving into the environment and advocacy — so it can become more of a community leader.” This, too, is a welcome shift. Foundation support for policy engagement is desperately needed at this time. NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project has been documenting the incredible impact of foundation funding for advocacy and community organizing, and we’ll be releasing the third report in the series next week in Minneapolis. I applaud the leadership of Grant Oliphant, the foundation’s president and CEO, for embracing this important role.

Of course, announcing good intentions in a strategic plan is only one step. Nonprofits and community residents in Pittsburgh and Boston are counting on their community foundations to live up to the ideals represented in these plans and to implement them well.

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Thursday, August 20, 2009

by Lisa Ranghelli

Lisbeth Schorr’s recent commentary, “To Judge What Will Best Help Society's Neediest, Let's Use a Broad Array of Evaluation Techniques,” in the Chronicle of Philanthropy made an important argument about the need to recognize and validate the knowledge and expertise of individuals and communities as they seek to solve complex social problems. Schorr cautioned against a reliance solely on “evidence-based” programs, since this gold standard of evaluation is almost impossible to attain – precisely because multi-faceted problems and solutions are hard to reduce to simple, linear cause-and-effect relationships.

Advocacy and community organizing tap the myriad skills and knowledge of a variety of stakeholders, who come together and pool what they know to craft solutions to community problems and create the political will to implement them. Sometimes these can be messy, nonlinear processes, yet their tangible and intangible impacts can be measured in a variety of ways. And the learning from those efforts—both successes and failures—informs future change strategies.

As foundation leaders, academics and practitioners seek ever more ways to measure and assess impact, it will be important to not separate the people on the ground and their knowledge from the seemingly neutral tools of evaluation. FSG Social Impact Advisors’ comprehensive study, “Breakthroughs and Shared Measurement of Social Impact,” noted that new shared systems “offer an important complement to more rigorous evaluation studies by promoting ongoing learning in timely and cost-effective ways.”

Key elements of these measurement systems include: voluntary participation by the organizations providing data; independence from funders in developing and managing the system; and, in more advanced systems, an opportunity for participants to get together and talk about the results, share learning, and improve coordination. These participatory tracking processes allow everyone involved in a complex set of activities to benefit from the information collected. These approaches can help shift focus from unrealistic attempts to learn whether a grant to one organization to achieve a specific outcome was effective, toward less fragmented, more holistic examinations of collective impact. Perhaps convening participants is as important as data collection, so that their “on the ground” knowledge can inform data analysis and future planning based on what the data reveals.

A quick review of the publicly-available approaches highlighted in the report indicates that only a few are attempting to capture data related to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement. The Center for What Works/Urban Institute Indicators Project stands out for having a set of outcomes and indicators for both advocacy and organizing.

Would more attention to advocacy and organizing in shared measurement systems–and the associated collective learning that participants undertake—be helpful to advocates and organizers? Would these tools give more funders confidence to provide grants for these strategies?

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina.

posted on: Monday, March 09, 2009

NCRP’s new Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best has sparked lively (and sometimes heated) discussions in philanthropic circles since we released it last week.

Criteria is a set of guidelines for grantmakers so they can operate more ethically and increase their impact on the world today.

According to Criteria, a foundation serves the public good by …

Criterion 1: Values
… contributing to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.

a. Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups

b. Provides at least 25 percent of its grant dollars to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society

Criterion 2: Effectiveness
… investing in the health, growth and effectiveness of its nonprofits.

a. Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars for general operating support

b. Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars as multi-year grants

c. Ensures that the time to apply for and report on the grant is commensurate with grant size

Criterion 3: Ethics
… demonstrating accountability and transparency to the public, its grantees and constituents.

a. Maintains an engaged board of at least five people who include among them a diversity of perspectives—including the communities it serves—and who serves without compensation

b. Maintains policies and practices that support ethical behavior

c. Discloses information freely

Criterion 4: Commitment
… engaging a substantial portion of its financial assets in support of its mission.

a. Pays out at last 6 percent of its assets annually in all grants

b. Invests at least 25 percent of its assets in ways that support its mission

You can view the full report, individual chapters, and executive summary for free at http://www.ncrp.org/paib.

Join the conversation—we’d love to hear from you! Tell us what you think about Criteria.

posted on: Friday, February 06, 2009

By Gary Snyder

“Today we are living in a different world. As stewards of the funds entrusted to us by the people of our parishes, we have a duty to enhance controls and to . . . strictly monitor those controls.” Bishop Edward U. Kmiec, Buffalo N.Y
"Every church has the same problem of being too trusting of their priests and ministers and church workers…so they don't put in the kinds of internal controls common in the business world." Chuck Zech, co-author of the study report, "Internal Financial Controls in the U.S. Catholic Church."

This is the third in a series of articles on nonprofit fraud. The latest edition of Nonprofit Imperative points out the need for fraud prevention in the religious community. Within one week, NI found the following:

• One priest was sentenced to 13 years in prison for stealing up to $1 million from two Virginia parishes.
• Another Catholic priest, this one from Florida, faces trial for allegedly stealing one hundred thousand dollars is seeking a deal.
• Two more priests who authorities say for years misappropriated more than $8 million from the offering plate of their Palm Beach County (FL) church have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing.
• A pastor of Hilltop Community Church (VA) accused of embezzling more than $100,000 from his church had been previously convicted in Virginia Beach in 1994 of at least seven felonies included embezzlement.
• A former finance director at a St. Paul (MN) church is charged with embezzling $37,000 from church deposits.
• Dallas Theological Seminary is suing its former chief financial officer, attempting to recover more than $165,000 that the school says he embezzled.
• A bookkeeper at George’s Sixes Presbyterian Church paid her mortgage and utility bills for four years and possibly some cocaine and marijuana.
• The former pastor of a North Carolina church has entered pleas to embezzling more than $298,000 from a Winston-Salem church. These thefts stemmed from his 20- years as pastor at First Baptist Church. He was sentenced to five years of probation and he has agreed to repay more than $120,000.

Almost 10 million dollars of churchgoers’ contributions are gone in such a short span and the Internal Revenue Service may have a problem investigating these misdeeds (see this) without an audit.

These offenses are shocking because such problems are not typically made public. Churches usually adopt a “trust and forgive” attitude, as the churchsolutionsmag.com indicates. They tend to be overly trusting and they are quick to forgive. Unfortunately, crooks are aware of that mindset and so churches are natural targets.

Some of the largest Ponzi schemes have occurred within the religious community. The church has sanctioned some, while others have been the result of informal communal relationships. All crises were borne out of blind trust. Take last weeks Ponzi indictment of an Arizona Christian nonprofit, Nakami Chi Group Ministries International, which promised 24 percent annual returns and where the owner was dipping into the money to make a down payment on an $800,000 home and to pay gambling debts and other personal expenses. Investors included one pastor, church elders and members of several churches.

We know that Bernard Madoff’s alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme targeted his fellow Jews.

And then there is Minnesotan Tom Petters who was arrested and charged for his own alleged Ponzi scheme in which he took $3.5 billion from members of his own evangelical Christian faith, many of whom were pastors that lost their retirement schemes. He focused on church groups and nonprofits. He is in jail awaiting a trial.

Since most religious organizations believe that it can’t happen at their church or synagogue there are seldom proper controls put into place to effectively prevent fraud. Malfeasance is rampant. A 2006 survey at Villanova University found that 85% of Roman Catholic dioceses had discovered embezzlement of church money in the previous five years, with 11 percent reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen.

Religious organizations need to make a commitment to openness and transparency with a strong conflict-of-interest policy. All policies must be observed with all staff having bought in to that adherence. The policies, at minimum, should have checks and balances in the handling of cash, which should include at least two people involved. The implementation should be a partnership between the religious leadership and the lay leadership with neither rubberstamping the others decisions. Both should be mindful of how volunteers perform their duties and how they stack up against the organizations policies and practices.

It’s a huge minefield that needs to be addressed forthrightly.

The previous articles on nonprofit fraud were on veteran and government malfeasance. Upcoming articles will be on cultural fraud, school fraud and nonprofit/political fraud.

Gary R. Snyder is the author of Nonprofits: On the Brink. He is a frequent lecturer and author of articles in numerous publications and blogs. His email is gary.r.snyder@gmail.com; website: www.garyrsnyder.com, phone: 248.324.3700.

posted on: Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Advocacy, Organizing and the Special Role of Philanthropy

By Niki Jagpal

In a recent blog post, Drummond Pike, founder and CEO of the Tides Foundation, Center and Shared Spaces, makes an excellent point about the role of nonprofits engaged in advocacy.

I couldn’t agree more with Pike’s strong support of advocacy, which demonstrates broad impact and a high return on investment for institutional philanthropy. Moreover, engaging in advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement are some of the most effective strategies to bring the authentic voices of ordinary citizens directly into policymaking that impact communities. If more foundations and institutional grantmakers adopt these strategies, the net benefit ripples across the U.S. society, advancing opportunities for all and making positive contributions that move us toward an inclusive and participatory democracy.

In the coming weeks, NCRP will release a report on the impacts of this work in New Mexico. The first in a series of reports that documents the impacts of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement across different parts of the country, the New Mexico report found a high aggregate return on investments associated with such work. Importantly, the benefits have already contributed to advancing state-wide opportunities for all citizens of New Mexico. NCRP found impacts in myriad issue areas, including living wages; immigrant rights; healthcare; and leadership development.

NCRP looks forward to contributing to these important discussions about the unique role of advocacy and organizing as tools for the civil society sector to increase its impact and maintain a civically engaged population. As Pike notes in his post, “NOW is the time to make clear what we hold to be critical, and the ideas we have been working on for how best to address those things.” I couldn’t agree more and hope that our reports documenting the impacts of advocacy help the nonprofit sector as a whole to work on the critical issues that strengthen communities nationwide.

Niki Jagpal is the research director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Monday, November 03, 2008

By Niki Jagpal

On October 10th, the Council on Foundations posted an open letter to its members outlining three recommendations for grantmakers impacted by the global “challenges of our times.” Authored by Ralph Smith, Chair of the Board, and Steve Gunderson, the Council’s President and CEO, the letter acknowledges that “even if fully implemented, these three recommendations do not constitute a sufficient response.” The Nonprofit Quarterly offers excellent insight into the deficiencies of the recommendations and suggests an alternative approach that would help foundations take the right steps towards making their response more sufficient.

Nonprofit Quarterly speaks to many of NCRP’s longstanding core beliefs and underscores the vital role that civil society in the United States must play in supplementing government efforts to address the current global economic crisis. Now is not the time for foundations to pull back funds. Instead, it’s time for them to maximize the impact of their payout requirements, which economic turmoil isn’t going to exempt them from. The nonprofit sector must continue to receive foundation funds if grantmakers want to keep their tax-exempt status.

As noted by the Quarterly, now is the time for increase in overall grantmaking, core support grants, program-related and mission-related investments, support for nonprofit advocacy, and commitment to the nonprofit sector. Now is the time for foundations to acknowledge their reliance on their grantees to carry out their charitable purpose and help the U.S. and the world recover from this global crisis. The Quarterly wants to hear from us all – take a minute to read their excellent letter and join the discussion.

Share your ideas on how foundations can be more responsive to the needs of lower-income and other marginalized communities through support of those nonprofits that serve these groups, especially in tough economic times.

Niki Jagpal is research director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Wednesday, October 22, 2008

When The Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get to Fundraise
By Melissa Johnson

Over the last few months, the nation’s economy has tinkered on the point of total upheaval. Although the stock market seems to be stabilizing and gas prices are beginning to come down, families hit with job losses and uncertainty in many places of business will be looking to nonprofits to pick up where the government is falling short.

NCRP board member Margie Fine, provides key strategic advice to nonprofits across the country that will fill this gap of providing services and advocating for children, families, and communities in need. During this time of crisis, nonprofits have to be proactive not only in their spending and efficiency, but also in striking the right balance between communication, inquiry, and transparency with foundations that support them.

Read the full article “Fundraising Success in A Time of Financial Crisis – It Is Possible” on the Center for Community Change’s Movement Vision Lab.

Melissa is the field director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Wednesday, September 24, 2008

By Aaron Dorfman

It’s time for funders to resume funding ACORN, and to consider major new investments in the organization in the coming year. In times like these, the country needs ACORN back at full strength.

I wrote a critical blog posting about ACORN’s embezzlement scandal a few months ago, and I’ve been following the situation ever since. I’ve been extremely impressed with the openness and leadership of Bertha Lewis, their new Interim Chief Organizer and I am convinced that ACORN is systematically addressing the problems that led it into such trouble.

Has ACORN fixed everything in 90 days that needed fixing? Of course not. But it’s clear that the organization is committed to solving the problems and they are well on their way to doing so.

The most important development is that the organization’s board is much more engaged than it ever was under the leadership of Wade Rathke. When they finally learned about what happened, they took decisive action, and they are now attempting to fulfill their proper roles of governance and oversight. They’ve identified their weaknesses and are seeking training in the areas where they need help. There is still some controversy on the board, and it’s going to be a messy process, to be sure. But my overall assessment is that funders should have confidence that the board is now properly engaged and that the ship is sailing in the right direction.

Another important development is that mid-level staff – the ones who really make the campaigns happen at ground level – are excited and hopeful about the future of the organization under Ms. Lewis’ leadership. She has been sharing information openly with staff of all levels, which is a welcome culture change for the organization.

The country needs ACORN back at full strength as soon as possible, and that will require serious investment by foundations. The financial markets are in turmoil, and ACORN’s track record shows that it can be one of the most effective voices for ensuring that the interests of those most at risk in any economic downturn, including the hundreds of thousands of low and middle-income homeowners caught up in the foreclosure crisis and financial market meltdown, are protected in bailout discussions. Most importantly, a new administration will take office in January, and the American people need ACORN at the table fighting for communities that so often get left out. They have the capacity to have major impact, but they’ll need funding to make it happen.

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Below is a copy of the speech given by Christine Ahn, senior fellow at the Korea Policy Institute and member of NCRP's board, during a session on foundation giving trends at the "Raising Change: A Social Justice Conference" sponsored by the Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training (GIFT) and the Grassroots Fundraising Journal.

Christine also wrote "Democratizing Philanthropy: Challenging Foundations and Social Justice Organizations" in the fall 2007 issue of Responsive Philanthropy, NCRP's quarterly publication.


Thank you for inviting me to be on the panel. I always feel like an imposter talking about philanthropy since I have never worked at a foundation. But as someone who has worked in the citizen sector for over 15 years, I have certainly written my fair share of grant proposals and received ample rejection letters (and the occasional acceptance letter). I have also served on the board of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) for over 4 years. But my real claim to knowing anything about philanthropy is my having been mentored by the infamous Pablo Eisenberg when I was a graduate student at Georgetown. He’s without a doubt the toughest critic of philanthropy today, and although many of you may not agree with his approach, it’s hard to dispute his unshakeable positions.

So, here we are. It’s the second GIFT biannual conference and there are more and more people interested in figuring out the 12-step plan to being free from the nonprofit industrial complex. I’m still in remission but trying to be part of the cure. And as with any search to find a cure, we need to get to the root causes and understand the landscape. With that said, let’s take a step back and put some trends in context.

• There is much grumbling among social justice activists that 501c3 nonprofit organizations are more concerned today about longevity than achieving true, systemic change.
• Many young people are leaving the nonprofit sector after working a few years due to burnout and low-pay. We as a sector are facing a crisis in leadership since many baby boomers that founded and headed nonprofit organizations must hand over the mantle of leadership, and fewer and fewer younger folks want to take over as executive directors because of the endless responsibility to raise funds.
• Most foundation dollars remain in the realm of elite institutions. Studies show that in the last 30 years, despite the doubling in the number of foundations, the quadrupling of foundation assets, and the increase in foundation grantmaking by 425%, grant support for those most in need (unemployed, homeless, low-income people) received disproportionately less than other broad program areas.
• We are in bad shape as a nation. We are in a war, in a recession, and hundreds of thousands of low and middle-income families have lost their homes to foreclosures caused by deregulation of the banking and financial services industry. The poor are poorer than they were since 1975 with over one-third of adults living in poverty among the working poor. This is against the backdrop of global warming, an energy crisis, and a global food crisis.

Given this scenario, social justice activists have been having more systematic conversations about whether 501c3 nonprofits have become a barrier or a vehicle to achieving social justice. In 2005, INCITE organized the "Revolution Will Not be Funded" conference at UC Santa Barbara, then the Raising Change conference held a debate in 2006, and then the US Social Forum held workshops by INCITE timed with the release of its book. In every setting, the room was packed and the heat on. As more and more funding goes to providing direct services as public services are slashed, there is less money to fund organizing—at a time when more civic engagement and community organizing is needed.

On the one hand, there are people who are so disgusted with the whole world of institutionalized philanthropy and the lack of accountability by foundations. They don’t see much hope for positive reform. Many of these are our friends here who espouse grassroots fundraising as the answer, and their critique is spot on that we need to think about building grassroots political power independent of tainted money. And trust me, I have experienced the difficulty of raising money for a Korea policy thinktank and running into all the challenges of trying to raise money from foundations largely run by white people who largely fund organizations largely run by white people. So I hear the grassroots fundraising people when they say enough is enough. And then on the other hand are those who say let’s take the money and run! We’re just playing the game and while we know that the game isn’t fair, we have to suck it up and play nice so that we can do the real work. The problem is that this conversation is very immobilizing. We need to do more than just walk away from foundation money, and we need to more than just take the money and run. We need to start democratizing institutionalized philanthropy through education, organizing and advocacy. And if there is resistance to accountability and transparency, then we need to reform the tax laws that gave the super-rich this public benefit in the first place.

So let’s think about the super-rich and the tax benefits they get. In 2006, Warren Buffet donated $30 million to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Three trustees—Bill, Melinda and Mr. Buffett—along with Bill Senior and now the new President of the Foundation—will decide how to allocate $3 billion-plus that the foundation is required to payout each year (Plus because Buffet mandated that his funds be spent down). Mr. Buffet gets huge tax write-offs, the Gates Foundation a huge infusion, and the public? We get to see how the Gates Foundation will invest in solving social problems.

The danger that this poses was seen in 2006 when the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations committed $150million to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). The way that the Gates Foundation cast this biotechnology initiative as “attaining the best yields in the diverse environments of Africa and work to make sure these high-quality seeds are delivered to farmers who need them the most.” In the view of the Gates Foundation, agricultural biotechnology is the silver bullet to solve hunger and malnutrition in Africa. Just because the Gates Foundation believes the solution to problems of low agricultural productivity rests on technology doesn’t mean it’s the one shared by millions of peasant farmers whose lives and livelihoods will be affected most by the Green Revolution in Africa. At the 2007 World Social Forum in Nairobi, 70 African civil society organizations from 12 African countries issued a statement that, “AGRA is putting over $150 million towards shifting African agriculture to a system dependent on expensive, harmful chemicals, monocultures of hybrid seeds, and ultimately genetically modified organisms” and “under-represent the real achievements in productivity through traditional methods, and will fail to address the real causes of hunger in Africa.”

Even Michael Edwards from the Ford Foundation writes that philanthrocapitalism, a term coined by the Economist to describe the harnessing of business and the market to the goals of social change, is dangerous. He writes, “The increasing concentration of wealth and power among philanthrocapitalists is unhealthy for democracy. It’s time for more accountability.”

And so the Greenlining Institute’s recent push to pass California Bill AB 624 to try to push for greater transparency and information of how foundation dollars are being allocated is a prime example of how much resistance there is from foundations to being held more publicly accountable. But the fundamental problem is that these institutions see themselves as private. But are they?

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, charitable deductions cost the Treasury Department $40 billion in lost tax revenue in 2006. In fact, it is estimated that at least 45 percent of the $550 billion dollars in assets that foundations have belong to the American public. As Akash Deep at Harvard and Peter Frumkin at University of Texas note, “When a foundation is created, the burden of lost tax revenue is borne by citizens today in the form of a tax expenditure” with the promise that it will be paid out in the future. The realization that foundations are partially public dollars is starting to raise the ire of more elected officials.

In an interview with Rick Cohen, former executive director of NCRP, California Congressman Xavier Becerra from Los Angeles and member of the House Ways and Means Committee said, “If you’re getting a tax subsidy, another taxpayer must make up for what you’re not paying. That subsidy should serve a good purpose. What are we getting for some $32 billion in lost revenues lost to the federal treasury in paid taxes? Is it serving a good public purpose? Statistics I’ve seen suggest that only 1 in every 10 dollars are serving poor people or disadvantaged people. I have to wonder where the other 9 dollars are going.”

While this signals potentially greater oversight over foundations, when push comes to shove, I don’t think Congressman Becerra or the current Congress have the courage to push for philanthropic reform. But that says less about what is the right and just course of action and more about the cozy relationship today between Washington and Wall Street.

Here in California, despite their valiant effort, AB 624 ended with a statement signed by 10 foundations promising to build the capacity and increase technical assistance support to minority-led and grassroots community based organizations that serve primarily minority and low-income communities. It was a good step, but it still leaves the monitoring to foundations. And it doesn’t resolve the issue of the government’s right to know about diversity or other matters related to the public good. Even universities are mandated to report to Congress how more diverse students are beneficiaries of these public institutions.

That’s why it’s really incumbent upon all of us, not just the Greenlining Institute, which played a catalyzing role, to challenge this lack of democratic accountability among foundations. AB 624 was a litmus test of how much resistance there is among foundations to transparency and public accountability and how far we are from being the strong, independent and courageous nonprofit sector we need to be. As we set off on the long and arduous path to rebuild all the damage that has been wreaked upon our nation and world over the last few decades, we must not look away from the essential challenge to democratize philanthropy.

Do you agree with Christine that social justice activists should engage foundations more than they are doing now? Do you agree with her assessment of the danger posed by mega-gifts? What do you think are the effective ways to address the lack of "democractic accountability" among foundations?

posted on: Thursday, June 12, 2008

by NCRP

Two new reports highlight important work undertaken by research director Niki Jagpal and senior research associate Lisa Ranghelli prior to joining NCRP's research team. The methods and results of these research efforts will inform NCRP's own work to promote philanthropy at its best.

The Solidago Fund recently released a report quantifying the community benefits achieved by its grantees and the return on investment of its funding for community organizing. Lisa Ranghelli worked with Jeff Rosen and other Solidago staff to develop the methodology and gather and analyze data for the report. She had previously worked with the Needmor fund to do a similar analysis of its community organizing grantmaking (see below). In calculating community benefits, the Solidago methodology allowed for differentiation between shared and full credit for grantee accomplishments. It also determined the foundation’s contribution to these accomplishments by calculating each grant as a proportion of the group’s budget. The report concluded that collaborative strategies yielded the greatest impact and found a return on investment for Solidago of $1 to $59. [Link]

In 2003, Lisa worked with the Needmor Fund, a small family foundation focused on social justice, to collect grantee data on organizational development. Lisa’s work found that the 18 surveyed grantees had collectively grown their membership by more than 30% and their leadership by 53% over four years. The most striking thing she found was that the aggregate dollar amount of their accomplishments during the four year time horizon was more than $1.37 billion. This meant that Needmor’s investment of $2,688,500 effectively generated a return of $1 to $512. [Link]

These two reports, which were preceded by independent research from the Jewish Funds for Justice, provide some of the framework for NCRP’s impact of advocacy and organizing work. For foundations seeking to maximize impact, NCRP wants to show the social and monetary value of investing in community organizing as a way to achieve lasting social change.

Meanwhile, research director Niki Jagpal did extensive post-Katrina research with Jim Carr, former Senior Vice President for Financial Innovation, Planning, and Research for the Fannie Mae Foundation who currently serves as Chief Operating Officer at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Her work focused on the disparate impact on lower-income and African American communities in New Orleans both immediately after the storm and following the one-year anniversary. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies recently announced the publication of a series of reports calling for a new model of disaster response, one that considers “historic patterns of discrimination and inequality.” Niki’s work is featured in one of the reports, “In the Wake of Katrina: The Continuing Saga of Housing and Rebuilding in New Orleans.” [Link]

Niki’s previous work addressing the distinct impact of Katrina and the subsequent recovery efforts on traditionally marginalized communities sets the backdrop for NCRP’s work on developing criteria for Philanthropy at its Best (PAIB). Promoting philanthropy that explicitly identifies and seeks to remedy structural barriers to equality are integral components of PAIB

posted on: Friday, May 23, 2008

by Suzanne Donovan



Editor's Note: Numerous grassroots organizations are at the forefront of anti-poverty initiatives across the country. Many of these organizations are dependent on private and public support, including foundation grants. An example of a successful and innovative anti-poverty organization is Step Up Savannah. We asked Step Up’s Suzanne Donovan to share their unique approach to fighting poverty in the city of Savannah. Step Up is a member of NCRP.



Savannah is known for its for beauty and quintessential Southern charm. It’s also a city proud of its history that has enjoyed significant economic development and improvements in the last few decades. But peel back a layer and you find there’s not been a corresponding reduction in the city’s poverty level. In fact, a persistent, high rate of poverty has plagued Savannah for generations.

Four years ago, the City of Savannah convened an Anti-poverty Task Force inviting participants from various sectors of the city—business, government, social service agencies, neighborhood organizations and others. The group reviewed research that not only described the depth of poverty, concentrated in five census tracts, but also studies that indicated a link between poverty and economic growth. This group called for the creation of a new initiative. They called it Step Up Savannah’s Poverty Reduction Initiative.

Step Up Savannah is now a collaboration among the City of Savannah, Chatham County, the Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Power, the United Way of the Coastal Empire and some 70+ businesses, agencies and organizations throughout the area.

What distinguishes Step Up is its acknowledgement that reducing poverty will take a combination of personal motivation, the private sector’s commitment to poverty reduction as integral to economic development, and advocating for institutional change.

The Step Up staff team is small; it includes a director, communications director and part-time administrator. Staff serve coordinating and leadership functions, but much of the work is conducted through specialized teams with volunteers from agencies, businesses and neighborhood groups. Step Up’s Action Teams focus on seven strategic goals: Workforce Development, Education, Asset Building, Dependent Care, Transportation, Healthcare, and Affordable Housing.

Contributing to Step Up’s success has been its use of poverty simulations to engage business leaders in experiencing and understanding the issues that keep families living poverty, and to establish a common frame of reference.

This is the first time in Savannah that this breadth of participants has come together to address poverty. The results are not yet easily quantifiable but a powerful private-public partnership has emerged which is focused on setting measurable outcomes and holding themselves accountable.



Suzanne Donovan is communications director of Step Up Savannah.

posted on: Thursday, May 22, 2008

by Aaron Dorfman

Yesterday, I attended a briefing at the National Press Club announcing the “The American City Agenda,” an ambitious new initiative by Living Cities to reform policies affecting urban communities. The mayor of Cleveland, the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor of Ohio were all on hand here in Washington, D.C. to announce the initiative’s launch in Cleveland.

Nine of the nation’s largest foundations and several large banks are among the partners of Living Cities. Collectively, they have invested over $543 million in 23 urban communities since 1991 and have pledged to reach $750 million by 2011. This new initiative is part of that effort.

The press release states, “Beginning with Cleveland, The American City Agenda will consider where policy is blocking needed reform, work to overcome outmoded and siloed systems, and develop the approaches needed to solve today’s challenges.”

That sounds great to me. NCRP has long advocated that foundations should invest in efforts to change public policy if they want to have a real and lasting impact on the issues that affect lower income communities.

I do, however, have one major concern. Nowhere in the printed materials or in any of the speeches did anyone mention if or how low-income residents themselves will be involved in shaping the policy agenda that will impact them and their families. No one spoke about community organizing or about reaching out to engage grassroots leaders in this ambitious effort. Will Living Cities be investing only in top-down reform efforts, or will they be investing also in community organizing groups and other grassroots organizations as part of this great effort to influence urban policy?

Ben Hecht is the relatively new CEO of Living Cities. He seems extremely talented. I’m sure he’ll figure out that part of the investment needs to go to bottom-up reform efforts if the results are going to have lasting impact on our nation’s cities.



Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Friday, April 04, 2008

What happens to a dream deferred?[1]

By Niki Jagpal

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, jr., it seems appropriate to review the progress we’ve made as a country toward achieving, or at least advancing, Dr. King’s vision as articulated in his famous “I have a dream” 1963 speech.

The Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation recently released a report called What We Can Do Together: A Forty Year Update on the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. The report tracks progress in areas ranging from education, health, income and wealth to crime and poverty, and is a follow up to the informally known Kerner Commission Report of 1968, which investigated the causes of the 1967 riots in Newark, Detroit and New Brunswick, and suggested mechanisms to prevent reoccurrence.

Contrary to Johnson’s assumption that ‘militant groups’ like the Black Panthers were responsible for the ‘race riots,’ the report concluded, “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal.” So 40 years later, it is fair to ask: is our nation still moving towards two societies, still separate and unequal? And what role can philanthropy play in addressing the needs of our evolving, pluralistic democracy?

Let’s compare some findings and statistics from the original report to those in the 40th anniversary report by the Eisenhower Foundation:

The criminal justice system:

“To some Negroes police have come to symbolize white power, white racism and white repression. And the fact is that many police do reflect and express these white attitudes. The atmosphere of hostility and cynicism is reinforced by a widespread belief among Negroes in the existence of police brutality and in a "double standard" of justice and protection--one for Negroes and one for whites.” – Kerner Commission Report

Today, the numbers paint a picture of little progress. According to the Eisenhower Foundation report:

• Minorities face a greater likelihood of receiving the death sentence than Whites. Minorities are also given longer sentences than Whites for the same crimes. Crack cocaine, which is used disproportionately by minorities, carries much longer sentences than those for powder cocaine, used more frequently by Whites.
• Scholars continue to find that regardless of their qualifications, some employers push minority applicants into the worst jobs. Further, many real estate agents steer minorities to less desirable locations, than Whites and fewer minority mortgage applications are accepted than White applications
• From the 1960’s to the 1980’s, school desegregation made rapid advances but was reversed dramatically by the courts.

Residential segregation and the “ghetto”

“Within the cities, Negroes have been excluded from white residential areas through discriminatory practices. Just as significant is the withdrawal of white families from, or their refusal to enter, neighborhoods where Negroes are moving or already residing. About 20 percent of the urban population of the United States changes residence every year. The refusal of whites to move into "changing" areas when vacancies occur means that most vacancies eventually are occupied by Negroes.

The result, according to a recent study, is that in 1960 the average segregation index for 207 of the largest United States cities was 86.2. In other words, to create an unsegregated population distribution, an average of over 86 percent of all Negroes would have to change their place of residence within the city.” – Kerner Commission Report

So 40 years later, how integrated are our neighborhoods?

• In the 1990s, overall residential segregation declined for African Americans but it rose for African Americans younger than 18 years of age.
• From 1980 to 2000, Hispanic residential segregation increased in several major metropolitan areas
• The overall levels of residential segregation remain disproportionately high for communities of color.

Communities of color and poverty

“Although there have been gains in Negro income nationally, and a decline in the number of Negroes below the "poverty level," the condition of Negroes ill the central city remains in a state of crisis. Between 2 and 2.5 million Negroes-16 to 20 percent of the total Negro population of all central cities live in squalor and deprivation in ghetto neighborhoods. …

In 1966, about 11.9 percent of the nation's whites and 40.6 percent of its nonwhites were below the "poverty level" defined by' the Social Security Administration (currently $3,335 per year for an urban family of four). Over 40 percent of the nonwhites below the poverty level live in the central cities.” – Kerner Commission Report

Today’s numbers on poverty rates among African Americans and Hispanics are:

• At a time when the U.S. is the richest country in history, 37 million Americans live in poverty today.
• Very poor African Americans are 3 times as likely and very poor Hispanics are twice as likely as Whites to live below half the poverty line, which is about $10,600 for a family of four.[2]

A Paradigm Shift

The Kerner Commission’s conclusion that our country was headed towards two societies, separate but unequal, seems to have borne out, despite the report’s intent for government to make policy changes to address racial inequality.

What the authors of the original report probably didn’t know was that their recommendations presaged a radically different way of analyzing racial inequality in the U.S. – structural racism. Discussions of race that focus exclusively on class obscure the impact of public and private institutions in perpetuating racial inequality. Structural racism argues that the combined impact of institutional arrangements and structures have racialized outcomes, even when these structures appear to be racially neutral, such as those affecting economic mobility.

Re-conceiving race and racism require an intellectual paradigm shift, and this has practical policy implications for addressing gaps in achievement versus gaps in opportunity. It is time for a policy paradigm shift, as Dr. Stephen Mayer recently noted. Let’s consider reframing affirmative action by adding class-based criteria to race.

What does this mean for philanthropy?

Philanthropists and private foundations can choose to invest their dollars in structural change; this isn’t ‘ivory tower’ academia inserting itself into philanthropy. It’s about focusing on the groups who are engaging in work on a daily basis that produces long-term sustainable results that benefit their communities. Foundations should seek out opportunities to invest their limited contributions in grants to local community organizations that are working on structural barriers to racial equality in the U.S.

As diversity remains a ‘hot topic’ in philanthropy, the time is right to remember Dr. King’s closing statement at the March on Washington, D.C. in 1963 through the lenses of structural barriers to racial equality, including class, gender, age, disability and, yes, public policy. Class-based affirmative action may be the first step towards allowing us to achieve Dr. King’s dream:

“And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"”

Niki Jagpal is research director at NCRP.

[1] Langston Hughes (1951). Harlem, from Montage of a Dream Deferred. Quoted in the 2008 Eisenhower Foundation report
[2] 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines

posted on: Monday, March 31, 2008

By Yna Moore

Does contemporary philanthropy benefit the needy? An increasing number from within the sector and the public don’t think so, and that’s problematic, said Susan Raymond in her speech during the 5th annual summit of OnPhilanthropy.

She implored the philanthropic community to take to heart the growing number of voices that have accused the sector of abandoning the needy, because the distrust and skepticism call into question the sector’s role in society:

“Those asking the questions are not the hairdressers of Hopkinsville or the
good old boys of the Koffee Klatch Kafe. The questions are not being asked
out of ignorance. They are being asked out of observation. … It is a
painful accusation but it is a fair question, because we hold the public trust;
we are the stewards of the societal commons. … It is a question that lies at the
heart of the reason for our very existence, the reason the people shoulder our
tax burdens. It is the essence of our compact with the American people,
the central core of their trust in us.”

NCRP has been one of the leading voices calling for change in foundation grantmaking practices for over 30 years, and it’s heartening to hear a well-regarded leader from the sector acknowledge the need to take the criticism seriously.

Her suggested rebuttal to these criticisms seems reasonable. Indeed, the concept of poverty and need has been a source of philosophical debate that predates philanthropy. There is no arguing that just as many around the world and in this country are in dire need of food for the body, there is also a human need for food for the mind and soul through the arts, religion and sciences. And it is also true that change—real systemic change—takes time, and the cause and effect of circumstances leading to change are not necessarily linear. In addition, the solutions to the problems our society faces today—such as poverty, lack of access to basic services, unemployment and environmental degradation—are as complex as the problems themselves. Consequently, there is no magic pill, no magic formula.

As Dr. Raymond dissected the arguments of critics, her rebuttal implicitly supports many of the ideas that critics have suggested to correct the philanthropic sector’s shortcomings in responding to the needy. Foundations should be more strategic in their grantmaking by using a variety of tools that more effectively respond to the needs of marginalized groups. This means that funding policy advocacy and grassroots organizing is just as important as funding direct services to address both the sources and symptoms of poverty and injustice. This means providing more flexible, multi-year support to nonprofits, not just program-specific grants for nonprofits serving the disengaged.

Finally, funding the arts and sciences is not bad at all. In fact, these are essential for people and civilizations to thrive. Although there is considerable wealth tied to philanthropic institutions, these resources are, nevertheless, scarce and limited compared to the tremendous needs in our society. As stewards of these resources, foundations must use their philanthropic dollars wisely and responsibly because at the end of the day, this all boils down to priorities.

These priorities will reflect the values of our society. What should we, as a sector, prioritize? Should people that make our work possible, i.e. the tax paying public that subsidize our sector, have a right to question how their tax dollars are being put to use? Absolutely!

If foundations don’t question their own priorities and don’t start doing more to benefit those with the least wealth and opportunity, not only will the critics grow in number, but their elected representatives might decide it’s time for the government to step in.

Anna Kristina ("Yna") Moore is communications director at NCRP.

posted on: Wednesday, March 19, 2008

by Aaron Dorfman

Paul Tough’s New York Times Magazine article ("How Many Billionnaires Does It Take to Fix a School System," March 9) guided discussion with experts about how philanthropy can best improve public education was great to see, and there were some good ideas put forth. But the experts forgot to mention what many view as the most promising approach to improving our schools. There’s a movement afoot to fund community-driven school reform from the bottom up. Foundations are increasingly funding community organizing groups who engage parents and other community residents in building power to hold local school officials accountable. They see building community power and accountability as the way to effect lasting change in complex systems. Large foundations like Gates, Ford and Mott, and dozens of smaller ones have banded together in various multi-million dollar reform efforts—and they’re getting results. We need more philanthropic support for these bottom-up initiatives, not for top-down schemes of grand design.

Julie Kohler, director of evaluation and program manager for Public Interest Projects' Communities for Public Education Reform, talked about a collaborative of funders supporting community-driven school reform in the fall 2007 issue of NCRP's Responsive Philanthropy.

Aaron Dorfman is the executive director of NCRP.