posted on: Tuesday, March 23, 2010

By Niki Jagpal

Catharine Crystal Foster, an independent consultant and seasoned advocate, and Justin Louie of Blueprint Research and Design, Inc., recently coauthored a good resource for funders and community organizers looking to evaluate organizing efforts. Grassroots Action and Learning for Social Change: Evaluating Community Organizing adds to the available resources for grantmakers that fund community organizing or those that would fund it if they could evaluate the work somehow.

Similarly, organizers can learn about the organic processes involved in evaluating their work to help them make a results-driven case to their current or prospective funders by using some of the information in this publication. Perhaps the most useful part of the publication for both grantmakers and organizers is the link it provides to a series of videos that were developed for grantees of the California Endowment, where organizers “discuss their experiences developing and conducting evaluations of their efforts.”

Incidentally, the California Endowment provided the financial support for this brief, and played a key role in NCRP’s recent Grantmaking for Community Impact Project report documenting the impacts of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement in L.A. County. Not only did the foundation provide funds for our report, but this grantmaker is exemplary in many ways, especially when it comes to supporting organizing and advocacy work for vulnerable communities and developing meaningful evaluation tools for such efforts.

So check out the latest addition to the community organizing ‘demystification box’ and kudos to Catharine and Justin on contributing to an important and ongoing discussion.

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Thursday, March 18, 2010

By: Christine Reeves

Last week, I attended a Capitol Hill event, “Economic Security for Women,” on International Women’s Day, March 8th, during Women’s History Month. The panelists were brilliant and brimming with ideas, and they were all women. Then, while scanning the approximate 120 attendees, I counted just six men, only one of whom was white.

Perhaps such an event, on such a day, in such a month can dissuade men from attending. Yet, with all these designated days and months on our calendars, we must resist the trap of convening events that cater exclusively to the demographic de jour. Rather, we should gather every minority, as well as the majority. Furthermore, men (including men of the white, wealthy, and well-educated variety) should challenge themselves to attend these events, learn, and advocate—not because they have mothers, sisters, wives, or daughters, but simply because they care about the other half of the population. I wonder how many women and especially men are aware of all the economic disparities for women—not in distant, desolate lands—but in our own country, all around us.

Before the event, I considered the point—proven by scores of experts—that the civil and economic statuses of a country’s female citizens are directly proportional to almost every positive gain that a country can experience (in demographic transitioning, human rights, and economic development). However, even women and girls of developed countries—such as the United States—face insecurities.

Courtesy of the 19th amendment, American women can vote. American women can also enroll in college, join the military, and campaign for elected office. Picket lines, protests, rallies, marches, speeches, and petitions demanding liberty and freedom led to legal victories over blatant civil injustices. Yet, today, many gender disparities work incognito, under the guise of economic injustices. Organizing and mobilizing people around a cause as unromantic and arcane as gender discrimination embedded in tax law is a challenge at best. Furthermore, since capitalism is almost as much an American tenet as liberty and freedom, advocacy for an individual’s economic rights hits a blockade whenever it threatens the free market. As the recent bailouts demonstrated, however, the “free” market remains unthreatened by a corporation’s economic rights to ask taxpayers for billions of dollars. Compounding the problem, human experience informs us that it’s usually easier to accept what we have than to fight for what we deserve and even harder to fight for what others deserve. So, advocates for the economic rights of women often can’t attain a critical mass of supporters. The result is the contagious tragedy known as complacency.

Capitalism and economic rights aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, they can thrive in a symbiotic relationship. So, we must find ways to support capitalistic ideals while advocating for women’s economic rights, because wealth (not just income) means safety, education, health, security, and options for women, their families, and their country. In 2004, before the first signs of our current economic crisis, the top 1 percent of the US population had 17 percent of the income and 34 percent of the wealth, while the bottom 60 percent of the US population claimed only 22 percent of the income and a shocking 4 percent of the wealth. Women of color are the most likely to have the least wealth, because they are less likely to inherit money, have a savings account, or own a home; and more likely to be a custodial single parent, endure racial and gender income gaps, and be targeted by the practices of predatory lenders and gouging credit card companies.

How, in the US, in the twenty-first century, can the average wealth of single African American or Hispanic women be under $100 and $120, respectively? And, how can half of all African American and Hispanic women have $0 of wealth? And, how are facts like these not leading the evening news and filling legislative agendas?
(Link for image: Executive Summary: Lifting as We Climb: Women of Color, Wealth, and America’s Future.)

We can see that the gender (and racial) wealth gap is entrenched and expansive, but what are we going to do to ensure the gap does lead the evening news and fill legislative agendas until it’s closed?

Well, the first step towards closing the gender wealth gap is closing the gender income gap. This is where I think philanthropy has the unique opportunity to play a critical role. Grantmakers can support nonprofits that advocate and organize for eliminating the gender income gap.

Specifically, one way grantmakers help close the gender income gap involves funding nonprofits that encourage employed women, job-seeking women, and girls to pursue more higher-paying (traditionally male-dominated) jobs. Yet, this option puts the onus on women’s need to change, without first examining the fractious system as a whole. Sure, this is a solid step in the right direction, and it might even narrow the gender income gap. But, overall, it’s the band-aid on a broken leg solution.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton offered another option. She and legions of likeminded advocates want women to earn more money in the careers they already occupy. For example, Holmes Norton cited that childcare workers (a female-dominated industry) earn less than animal control workers (a male-dominated industry). Since society probably doesn’t value animals over children, one could assume that male animal control workers have been more vocal about demanding greater compensation than their childcare counterparts. Grantmakers can push this salient discussion into the fold of the current economic crisis in one easy step. They can support nonprofits that demand lawmakers include both male and female dominated jobs in the $787 billion stimulus package (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) that has created 594,644 jobs and counting. Philanthropy must challenge lawmakers to not only create jobs, but to target assistance thoughtfully and equitably; otherwise, lawmakers will exacerbate preexisting disparities.

The most challenging and time-consuming option for closing the gender income gap requires advocacy for a systemic end to gender-segregation in the job market. For this option, grantmakers cannot rely on single-year grants. Instead, grantmakers can support nonprofits that start at the roots: girls. At home, girls require vital healthcare, nutrition, and safety. In school, they need strong educations that give them knowledge, as well as the confidence to raise their hands, ask questions, give answers, captain teams, and lead students groups—all practice for contributing to the workforce and pursuing fair compensation for their work. Grantmakers must exercise patience when funding nonprofits that support girls. The return on investment might take a generation, but when it does come, it won’t just be a return on investment. It will be a return of economic equality for generations to come.

Closing the income gap, to help close the wealth gap, to improve economic security for women is a huge and complex necessity. It’ll take the time, money, and vision of women and men working together. So, complacency isn’t an option, but philanthropy is.

Christine Reeves is field assistant at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).