posted on: Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Photo by Becky Gillette / The Sierra Club, original post here (added on 3/25/10)
By Melissa Hanson

Last Thursday, I had the pleasure of listening in on Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy’s (EPIP) member briefing, Investing in the Community: Renewal of The Gulf Coast Region after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which was part of their Social Justice Philanthropy: Engaging the Grantee series. The teleconference focused on the Gulf Coast Fund’s insightful response to the aftermath of the devastating storms in 2005.


Here is a little re-cap of the devastation that came with the storms:

• At least 1,836 people lost their lives
• 80% of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes were underwater, some areas remaining so for weeks
• Hundreds of thousands were left unemployed
• Sparked the largest diaspora in the history of the U.S.
• The government provided no transportation out of the city despite imposing mandatory evacuation

While FEMA, the Red Cross and Blackwater were busy attempting to cover up their inadequacies, the Gulf Coast Fund, a project of the Rockefeller Foundation, was busy creating a truly grassroots approach to grantmaking in order to help communities rebuild and heal. Their mission was to make grants for effective movement building, and their approach would focus on the entire region affected by the storms, from Texas to Alabama. Their goal was to challenge the institutional racism and oppression that had greatly exacerbated the devastation of the storm and which was currently shaping how the affected areas were being rebuilt.

The fund started from one simple principle: Those who would be affected by the fund’s dollars should be in charge of them (unfortunately quite a radical idea). The fund set out to build an advisory committee of residents and movement leaders to make the major decisions about where the money would go. To date they have given a total of $2.7 million since May 2006. The fund has been quite successful, and most speakers on the panel attributed its success to the advisory committee, which is geographically as well as racially diverse.

The advisory committee meets regularly with its grantees and has created multiple new coalitions across the sector. They designed the application process to be efficient and accessible, with flexible deadlines and a simple procedure. The committee is involved in every step of the grantmaking process, and decisions are made as quickly as possible, with ample consideration and discussion.

Derrick Evans, a current member of the Advisory Committee from Turkey Creek Community Initiatives, commented that the Gulf Coast Fund was the “first initiative of any kind after Katrina that embraced the core principles of community driven, community informed, community-led” action. It is amazing that more funders do not accept this model of engagement with communities, and instead make decisions from far and away, inevitably maintaining the systems of power and racism that continually threaten our communities. If funders are interested in making real, sustainable changes in communities, it is absolutely essential to involve those communities in decision making processes and form a solid working relationship with them. Any attempt at change must directly confront the systemic and structural barriers to that change, or risk perpetuating them.

Today is the last day of the Katrina @ 5 conference in New Orleans, and I would like to urge any readers who are there to comment on what they are learning from the event and their thoughts on how to move forward.

Melissa Hanson is an intern at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Monday, March 22, 2010

By: Christine Reeves

Barring a lucky night in Las Vegas, or an investment in some overnight-miracle stock, could you turn $1 into $157? Of course you could. It only requires the logic to support nonprofit advocacy and organizing. As evidenced by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s research, this is precisely how a sample of New Mexico nonprofits earned an astronomical 157 percent return for their communities. Subsequently, NCRP revealed that North Carolina, Minnesota, and Los Angeles nonprofits’ advocacy and organizing yielded a striking 89 percent, 138 percent, and 91 percent return on investment, respectively. I challenge even the luckiest poker player or veteran day trader to duplicate and sustain that kind of success. So, nonprofits know what works—advocacy. Now, they need what advocacy requires—more initial funding. Enter philanthropy…

Last week, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition held its 20th Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. NCRC is an association of over 600 community-based organizations that help people acquire the basic needs of fair banking services, job development and affordable housing. This year, the bank bailouts, job market freefall and housing calamity fueled the discussion and dismay of the conference attendees. The trio of catastrophes also reinforced the nonprofit participants’ commitment to seek funding for advocacy and organizing.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, “Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate” once again emerged with a dubious distinction: the industry with the greatest annual lobbying expenditure. They spent a massive $3.92 billion to ensure their own protection. Imagine what $3.92 billion—or even $3.92 million—could do for so many of their clients, who lost their savings, homes, health insurance, livelihoods and abilities to afford both prescription medications and adequate food and shelter for their families.

Corporations know public policy can be a zero-sum game: when one group gains, another loses. Yet, even though corporations are winning this game right now, they don’t have a monopoly on it. Everyone can advocate and organize for their rights. However, unemployed, underemployed, indebted, and foreclosed upon victims of corporate greed cannot spare a $3.92 billion megaphone to voice their concerns. Therefore, these Americans rely on sage nonprofit professionals, who encourage policymakers to value the struggles of hard-working Americans over the influence of corporations—an uphill challenge made even harder in wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

This is where philanthropy must heed the call and help level the precipitous playing field. Grantmakers’ funding catalyzes 157 percent returns on investments for communities in need. Plus, supporting nonprofit advocacy and organizing aligns with grantmakers’ collective goal: spread and sustain positive change.

At the end of the day, the law of averages will always stipulate that risk comes with every grant project; some succeed, some fail, and most fall somewhere in the middle. However, funding strong grant proposals that include advocacy and organizing mitigate the risk of failure. I supposed the title of this blog is misleading: Luck isn’t an advocate; it’s what grantmakers need when they don’t invest in an advocate.

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

Photo credit: Graur Razvan/graur_razvan_ionut/Freedigitalphotos.net

posted on: Thursday, March 18, 2010

By Kevin Laskowski

A new report details the disastrous effects of state budget crises on an already hard-hit nonprofit sector and, among other recommendations, encourages foundations to ramp up advocacy and organizing efforts.

Published this week by the National Council of Nonprofits, State Budget Crises: Ripping the Safety Net Held By Nonprofits explains how cash-strapped states are needlessly sacrificing civil society for solvency amid the economic downturn. Forty-eight states face an estimated $194 billion shortfall this year, and the situation is not likely to improve. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reported that 35 states will face budget gaps totaling more than $55 billion for in 2011, and 23 states already project shortfalls totaling $69 billion for the 2012 fiscal year. In response, states are slashing funds for essential human services, shifting costs to nonprofits, withholding payments to nonprofit contractors, imposing new fees, and circumventing charities' tax-exempt status.

To maximize impact and protect the nonprofit sector and those it serves, the Council urges foundations to get in the game and "leverage [their] investments in nonprofits by supporting policy work."

Citing statistics from NCRP's Grantmaking for Community Impact Project (GCIP), the report notes, "Foundation giving that supports civic engagement and nonprofit advocacy yields tremendous returns, producing $88 to $157 in benefits for every dollar invested in advocacy."

(GCIP documents the impact of advocacy and organizing in sites around the country. There are four published reports in the series, including reports from New Mexico [source of the $157 figure], North Carolina [source of the $89 figure], Minnesota, and Los Angeles County.)

“Many foundations take at best a ‘hands‐off’ posture, and at times an actively negative one, toward policy involvement and civic engagement," the report continues with lessons learned from The Johns Hopkins University's Listening Post Project. "This puts an unnecessary damper on what should be a major function of the nation’s nonprofit institutions – giving voice to the voiceless and raising unaddressed issues to national policy attention."

"Foundations need to re‐think their hands‐off position toward nonprofit advocacy and increase their financial support for this important function," it said.

These comments echo the forceful claims of Gara LaMarche, President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies, and Lewis M. Feldstein, President of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, at a recent panel discussion at the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, "Too Close for Comfort? Obama and the Foundations,"a transcript of which was published this week.

In his remarks, LaMarche contended that policy engagement was essential, that grantmakers could not afford to ignore policy and expect success.

"[Foundations] cannot, with their own funds alone, begin to feed [the] hungry, care for the sick, or educate for participation in contemporary society many millions of young people," he said. "By definition, their role must be – it is hoped – catalytic."

"Since the federal budget alone dwarfs the combined endowments of America’s foundations – to use just one measure, last year’s much-debated stimulus package was more than twenty times the annual spending of all foundations put together – no foundation concerned with the education, health, employment, or any other core human undertaking can afford to be unconcerned with government policy. Government is the only institution that is both democratically controlled and can deliver, to use a philanthropy buzzword, at 'scale.'” (emphasis added)

Feldstein challenged the panel's premise, arguing that foundations as a group have been too quiet.

"[T]he problem is not that philanthropy is too close to Obama or too close to government, it’s that as an institution, for the most part we’re silent," he said. "We’re non-players! We’re marginal. We could do a huge amount more to move the public sector than we do. That’s the real failure."

"[O]ut of the 100,000-plus foundations, there are a tiny, tiny few who do this [work to move government in philanthropy]. And that’s this country’s loss," he said. (emphasis added)

Feldstein contended that, amid recent trends and the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, advocacy had become more necessary.

"This country needs it desperately, now; it’s going to be even harder for many of the views that people represent to be heard," he warned.

Indeed, without well-capitalized advocates and organizers to protect and sustain what serves as a safety net, grantmakers will watch as the downturn swallows years of philanthropic investment. Without a robust civic sector holding business and government accountable, an already dire situation will continue to worsen for vulnerable communities around the country. Philanthropy cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. As the Council's report suggests, it's time for grantmakers to get into the policy game.

"Policymakers deserve and need feedback on their proposals to address their budget shortfalls," the Council's report concludes. "Providing that feedback is yet another way that nonprofits can serve their communities – and protect the social safety net."

"[I]n looking at our recent experience and adjusting for the years to come, foundations also need to look into themselves," LaMarche argued last month. "Most move far too slowly to capitalize on actual opportunities to achieve long-sought goals once they’re at hand. Many are too skittish about engagement in policy advocacy. Few have a strategic vision broad enough to fit the key issues together into a coherent narrative. Dominant funding practices imprison their grantees in silos, reinforcing interest group politics. And the lack of multi-year core support in most cases hobbles foundation beneficiaries in the effort to plan, prepare, and seize the moment for change when it arises. I doubt that foundations and the Obama administration are too close for comfort. But comfort is not the goal. Engaged and critical discomfort is more likely to produce the best results for society, foundations, and our political leaders."

Kevin Laskowski is Field Associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Wednesday, March 17, 2010

By Julia Craig

While we were in L.A. for the release of the most recent Grantmaking for Community Impact Project report, Lisa Ranghelli and I had the chance to catch up with Chris Gabriele of People Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER), a Santa Monica-based grassroots nonprofit focused on promoting affordable housing and education reform. We asked Chris to tell us how the impacts of community organizing extend beyond the victory, especially the ways in which it empowers residents to advocate on their own behalf. He described how a direct action POWER conducted led to new leaders in the community.



Holiday Venice provides 250 affordable rental units in a gentrifying neighborhood and is valued at $73.8 million. This victory was a substantial one for preserving access to low-income housing for residents of Venice.

The victory is more than the dollar amount. As Chris explains in the video, “It’s the transformation that happens within the community leaders. Folks that are normally downtrodden… [thinking] ‘I’m in a community that’s poor, there’s no way that we’re going to win.’ This idea of being able to confront a decision maker, being able to confront something that has had power over you for so long is transforming. And you’ve seen that over the past couple of years since that action in how the leaders who were a part of this action have grown, who have taken on more responsibility, have fostered relationships and cultivated new leaders within their own communities.”

The development of local leadership from the community is one of the key tenets of organizing and is something that sets it apart from other forms of advocacy. Some readers may have been put off by Chris’ description of the direct action event or are uncomfortable with the idea of supporting organizations that utilize confrontational tactics. However, direct action is just that: one tactic used as part of a larger strategy that includes developing leaders and arming individuals with the skill and confidence to take their concerns directly to decision makers.

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

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, February 25, 2010

by Julia Craig

An organizer aboard a Los Angeles bus.

Photo courtesy of Labor/Community Strategy Center Bus Riders Union

Next Tuesday, March 2, NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project will release the fourth report from the Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities series on the impacts of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement in Los Angeles County. (Learn more about the three previous reports on New Mexico, North Carolina and Minnesota.) Lisa Ranghelli, Kevin Laskowski and I will blog over the coming weeks to showcase stories from our work in the region.

You’ve probably heard that Los Angeles is not a place known for its public transportation infrastructure. L.A. County is home to 7 million cars and its infamous smog hovers over 650 square miles of freeway. But did you know that there are 500,000 transit riders in the region, and they have a union representing their needs? That’s according to Tammy Bang Luu of The Labor/Community Strategy Center Bus Riders Union (BRU). BRU was founded in 1992 as part of the Strategy Center’s Transportation Policy Group to provide a voice to these transit users. Since then, it has fought to improve public transportation access and build transit equity in the Los Angeles region.

When the Bus Riders Union began, it was a novel concept; no one in the nation had tried to organize transit riders, who are a diverse group of people with varying priorities and backgrounds. BRU has built a multi-lingual, multi-racial organization with 3,000 dues-paying members. Today, there are transit riders unions throughout the country including Austin, Atlanta, Boston and Baltimore.

In 1996, BRU won an unprecedented Consent Decree following a lawsuit against Los Angeles MTA citing racial discrimination in MTA’s transit policies. The suit alleged that MTA violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by establishing a discriminatory, separate, and unequal transportation system while using federal funds. The decree’s provisions lasted until 2001. During that time, BRU had to fight to implement the stipulations of the agreement, which included expanded bus services in centers of employment, fare reductions and the creation of a joint working group with MTA and BRU.

The Consent Decree set the stage for the Bus Riders Union’s ongoing work to hold transit officials accountable and bring the voices of transit users to bear on decision-making. In 2005, BRU won a streamlined process for the student bus pass application procedure. Students save $320 to $380 per year by purchasing a monthly pass instead of an adult pass or paying the full fare each day. Since the implementation of the new procedures, an estimated 20,000 additional eligible students purchase the monthly pass, netting families $47 million in savings over the course of six years.

This is just one example of the ways in which organizations in Los Angeles County are winning policy innovations that improve life for lower-income people, people of color, and other vulnerable communities. Check out the full report, which will be available for free download on our website on March 2, and let us know what you think in the comments!

Julia Craig is research associate and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in L.A. County.

To receive notification regarding the release of the report, join our mailing list.

posted on: Wednesday, February 10, 2010

“I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.”

- Blanche DuBoise, A Streetcar Named Desire




Photo by: Francesco Marino/freedigitalphotos.net

Playwright Tennessee Williams’ famous line also holds true on the philanthropic stage. After all, where can strangers offer more kindness than in philanthropy—where grantmakers and nonprofit leaders depend on each other—and where so many people in need depend on the grantmaker-nonprofit partnership?

Last week, Arabella Advisers, the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers (WRAG), and PNC co-hosted a panel discussion on bolstering the impact of philanthropy. The animated discussion focused on two reports: Arabella Adviser’s High-Impact Giving Opportunities: Philanthropy That Makes a Difference and WRAG’s Beyond Dollars Investing in Big Change: How Washington Area Grantmakers are Creating Lasting Impact. Although Arabella and WRAG each published independently and included different case studies, when I read the reports in sequence, I thought they equipped grantmakers with clearer advice. Overall, I viewed the strategies WRAG identified (timing and momentum, a strong voice, leveraging resources, and true partnerships) as four tools necessary for approaching any philanthropic initiative. Then, Arabella’s report suggested four philanthropic initiatives (policy advocacy, broad alliances, mission investment, and public-private partnerships) that I thought grantmakers could better pursue with the tools from WRAG’s report.

The reports shared similar messages, but the most prominent common denominator was a simple concept: partnerships. However, don’t let the simplicity detract from its significance; partnerships should be the foundation to any grantmaking strategy. Grantmaking suffocates in silos, especially in a vastly interconnected world that reaps tremendous rewards from partnerships between grantmakers and nonprofits, as well as governments, businesses, and people in need.

Partnership Benefits:
Both reports and the panelists championed the importance of partnerships, but more can be said on the topic. Foundations benefit from partnerships during every stage of the grantmaking process.

While researching a new grant opportunity, for example, partners increase the knowledge base. Think tank scholars, professors, reporters, practitioners, retired experts, and counterparts at other organizations all hold fortunes of insights and information, and they are only conversations away. Before making a funding commitment, a grantmaker can pool resources and overcome barriers to entry by partnering with another grantmaker who shares programming goals. If grantmakers forge partnerships, they will dedicate more resources to programming. Partnerships are not vehicles for grantmakers to deliver static, one-time gifts to nonprofits. Rather, I believe grantmaker-nonprofit partnerships are proof of dynamic relationships between likeminded people who see grants not as charity or hand-outs, but as instruments of social justice.

Partnership Responsibilities:

Although the reports and panelists touched on the responsibilities grantmakers and nonprofits accept when they form partnerships, partnership benefits received more time and attention. Thus, I wanted to continue the conversation of partnership responsibilities. Interestingly, however, the responsibilities I enumerate below can become benefits. By identifying and executing each of these responsibilities, the impact of philanthropic funding expands.

(1) Conduct background research:
Understand both the big picture and the nuances of a given situation (and determine if, when, and how you can replicate best practices).

(2) Learn everyone’s role:
Who is the lead decision-maker? Who comprises the supporting cast? Who labors backstage, and how can you ensure that their accomplishments receive earned recognition? How can your performance enhance the performances of others?

(3) Read from the same script:
Share a common definition and prioritization of goals (short-term and long-term), strategies for achieving those goals, and benchmarks for achieving those strategies. For example, is your goal to create better schools? Well, how do you define “better”? Does better refer to teachers? If so, are you referring to better teacher quality or quantity? What metrics will determine if the abilities or number of teachers are met? Then, consider whether deficiencies in teacher quality and quantity are the core problems, or if they are symptoms of deeper problems in the education infrastructure.

(4) Plan the length of your run (multi-year grants):
Even the largest foundations have finite resources, and they still shoulder the burdened of saying “no” to many worthy causes. So, when foundations do say “yes,” they must grant both funding and adequate time for the funding to begin reaping success. Sometimes, unrealistic expectations of certain one-year grants can lead to failure.

(5) Encourage audience participation:
Guarantee that the goals you share with your partners align with the needs of the community you serve. If realignment is needed, listen to community members and adapt. Don’t squeeze the proverbial square peg in the round hole. Also, consider the long-term value of civic engagement, advocacy, and/or community organizing (and realize that your audience may have a different lexicon for these ideas).

Christine Reeves is field assistant 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: Thursday, January 14, 2010

By Julia Craig

The Center for Participatory Change (CPC) in Western North Carolina released recently Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities, a report documenting “horizontal giving” in western North Carolina. CPC was part of NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project North Carolina sample.

“Horizontal giving” is the mutual non-monetary sharing that occurs among friends, family and community members. CPC replicated a methodology used in South Africa to conduct 12 focus groups with 122 people across Western N.C., which included white, African American, Hmong, Cherokee, and Latino community members. The report identified 13 categories of giving, including concrete resources such as labor or food and less tangibles such as emotional support or support around experiences with racism. The report weaves anonymous quotations from the focus groups in with analysis of the findings.

CPC found that horizontal giving was more important among participants than vertical giving, which they define as traditional giving to and from institutions). Community members described the significant benefits they felt in improved quality of life they received from horizontal contributions. In the executive summary, CPC highlighted specifically the way racism and communal support for members who experienced racism was discussed by the groups: “systematic and individual racism is a powerful force in the lives of people of color … people need to come together to support one another around the racism that they experience, and … this mutual support around racism is an important form of giving.”

So, as CPC asked in its summary of the report, what do these findings on horizontal giving in low-wealth communities mean for grassroots social change organizations?

For one thing, the focus groups rarely talked about the nonprofit sector. There was no negative perception of nonprofits, but the participants primarily valued social networks and churches as communities (rather than as social service providers) and sources of support. CPC acknowledged that as a community organizing support nonprofit, it should better account for how the structures of mutual support within a community interact with more formal grassroots work. Craig White of CPC said:

“For CPC, we took a hard look at the findings from our study, and reviewed our work to be sure that we weren't doing anything to undercut or compromise the natural systems of giving that already exist in each community. We realized that the relationships that form in grassroots groups are often the type of connections that allow people to help each other with emotional support, housing, caregiving, transportation, and all the other forms of informal giving. Even more than before, we now try to make sure that a grassroots group isn't just spending time on work and projects and business, but that there's lots of time for conversation, having fun, and celebrating - because the relationships formed there may have just as big an impact as the group's official projects do.”

For traditional philanthropy, one lesson is similar to the conclusion CPC drew for its own work: funders should take the time to learn about and understand pre-existing networks of support and organic networks of horizontal giving. CPC wrote that institutions focused on giving can better account for the role that horizontal giving plays in lower-income communities when addressing poverty and other systemic problems.

You can download the full report for free on the CPC website, or read Craig White’s article in the current issue of Grassroots Fundraising Journal.

Julia Craig is research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Tuesday, October 27, 2009

by Yna C. Moore

With the help and support of the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, Headwaters Foundation for Justice and Main Street Project, 10 of the 15 organizations in Minnesota featured in our latest Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities report put together their own multimedia presentations that highlight their advocacy, organizing and civic engagement efforts.

These organizations include:

• Advocating Change Together (ACT)
• Alliance for Metropolitan Stability
• Centro Campesino
• Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM)
• Indigenous Peoples Task Force (IPTF)
• ISAIAH
• Minnesota AIDS Project (MAP)
• National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Minnesota
• Range Women's Advocates
• Somali Action Alliance

These organizations work on various critical issues faced by Minnesotans, such as transportation equity, civil rights and health care.

We invite you to view their stories, meet those on the frontlines of making positive change happen in our communities and be inspired!

Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Minnesota by Gita Gulati-Partee and Lisa Ranghelli documents how 15 local organizations and their allies leveraged foundation support to bring in $138 dollars in equivalent benefits for every dollar invested in policy engagement efforts.

Yna C. Moore is communications director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP.)

posted on: Wednesday, October 21, 2009

By Ben MacConnell

Seize the day! That seems to have been the rally cry in community organizing circles ever since the former Chicago organizer – now president and Nobel laureate – Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in the summer of 2008.

Having a former organizer in the White House does seem to have presented a unique opportunity for the field of community organizing. In April, the New York Times printed an article (in their fashion section no less) suggesting that President Obama has made community organizing “cool again.” College professors have reported that previously obscure classes on community organizing are now seeing record enrollments. Last year, during the Direct Action and Research Training Center's (DART) annual recruitment drive for the DART Organizers Institute, recruiters collected over 2,000 resumes and 900 applicants for only 17 available positions. So something seems to be happening.

But seizing the day can take many forms. When Sarah Palin mocked President Obama’s organizing experience at the Republican national convention, community organizers across the country launched websites, wrote blogs and printed bumper stickers to defend the profession. After the inauguration, several foundations pieced together money – even with the market crash – to encourage activities that would capitalize on this moment in history. When President Obama announced his plans to reform healthcare, some community organizations that have historically focused their efforts locally, began sending staff to the beltway to work at the national level.

Business writer, Jim Collins, is an unusual author to cite for an article about community organizing. But then again, Collins has researched how to build great companies that last, and any recipe for enduring greatness ought to be understood by disciplined organizers. Collins talks a great deal about companies that spend too much energy telling the time of the day and not enough energy building clocks. Martin Luther King, Jr. made a similar observation when describing churches during the civil rights movement. He said churches had acted more like thermometers recording the temperature of the day, rather than thermostats that set the level of heat.

These lessons seem relevant to this “seize the moment” phenomenon that’s currently all the rage. It suggests that instead of focusing on telling the time with the hottest issue campaigns, organizing technology or slogans, the field of community organizing needs to take this opportunity to build good clocks. To do this, community organizing needs to do what any industry does with a long-term interest on impacting the world – it draws in, uses and retains great talent. Notably, most applicants to the DART Organizers Institute said that their interest in organizing didn’t stem from President Obama’s past life as an organizer, but from someone they know and respect telling them about this line of work. So while President Obama’s past has raised awareness, the onus is still on organizers and their allies to do the outreach and cultivation necessary to bring talented people into this line of work.

Every year or two a survey or report is issued that highlights the severe need for more professional organizers to sustain a movement. In 1998, the Peace Development Fund reported that community organizations faced, “survival issues hampering efficiency and effectiveness, including personnel issues such as high turnover, the scarcity of trained organizers, and burnout. …” After surveying 100 local faith-based community organizers, Interfaith Funders discovered in 2001that, “The factor most consistently cited by respondents as limiting the growth of their work is the recruitment of talented organizers.” Andrew Mott, the former Director of the Center for Community Change, wrote in his 2006 report compiled for Community Catalyst, “We have invested too little in developing sufficient numbers of people with the vision, breadth of knowledge, commitment and skills needed to tackle the issues, which low-income communities and people of color face in America today.” All of these reports and others like them have drawn the same conclusion – the ability to build strong organizations committed to a shift in power and reversing injustice rests on the capacity to develop great community organizers.

For all of these reasons, we – organizers and funders alike - ought not ask how to seize the day; we ought to ask how to seize a generation.

Ben MacConnell is Director of the DART Organizers Institute, a field school for new professional community organizers that will be celebrating its tenth year in 2010. For more details, check out their latest video.

Editor’s note: In a couple of months, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy will be marking the first anniversary of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impact of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement, a series of reports that highlights the positive impact that communities have seen through funder-supported nonprofit policy engagement. This posting by guest contributor Ben MacConnell brings home a basic resource requirement for nonprofit advocacy groups – or any organization - to have a chance at success.

posted on: Thursday, October 08, 2009

by Julia Craig

The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University recently released a series of C. S. Mott Foundation-funded case studies profiling the work of nonprofits organizing for school reform across the country. “The Impact of Community and Youth Organizing on School Reform” series examined the strategies of residents of seven urban areas across the country in their efforts to enact local school reforms.

One of the organizations included in the series was the Community Coalition of South Los Angeles. The Annenberg Institute documented the Community Coalition’s work improving access to college preparatory courses at high schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

The South L.A. Report profiled one of the students benefitting from access to college preparatory courses. The summary of the Annenberg Institute’s findings illustrated the power that organizing brought to the struggle for equitable access to resources in the school district. Russlyn Ali, executive director of The Education Trust-West said, “I am pretty convinced that no amount of intellectual framing and data and research that we could have provided would have moved the district. We needed the 800-plus Latino and African American parents to mandate rigor. It was organizing unlike anywhere else I’ve seen in the nation.”

Community Coalition co-created the Communities for Educational Equity coalition in 2004, which organized parents and students to demand more equitable distribution of resources and greater accountability from LAUSD. According to the study, organizing accomplished these goals. One school official commented that it was the largest reform the district passed in 20 years. The South L.A. Report talked to Luis Lopez, who graduated in 2008 and now attends UCLA, where he is doing research on South L.A. as part of his studies. He hadn’t even considered college until his senior year, since neither of his parents went. Luis was the valedictorian of his class. Still, upon enrollment in UCLA, he found that he wasn’t prepared for the rigors of a college setting. He looked around and realized he hadn’t had the same opportunities as his new classmates. As he told the South L.A. Report, “[I]f you compare Beverly Hills High to Fremont, one looks like a prison and the other looks like a university.”

The Annenberg Institute’s work to document the effectiveness of education reform organizing complements NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project. L.A. County is the fourth site of the project, following New Mexico, North Carolina and Minnesota. Additionally, Community Coalition is one of NCRP’s nonprofit partners and will participate in the research by providing us with data about their work and accomplishments over the past five years. NCRP senior research associate Lisa Ranghelli and I will be working with Community Coalition and 14 other groups in L.A. County documenting their work to educate funders about the value of advocacy and organizing work. We will release the results of our study in early 2010. I hope you’ll watch out for it!

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.

posted on: Friday, October 02, 2009

by Niki Jagpal

On October 1, the Alliance for Justice posted some great news on their website: they received a ruling from the IRS regarding the rules that apply to the organization’s grants to groups that lobby. This was several years in the making. In 2005, AFJ had asked the IRS for a ruling to clarify whether public charities , like their private foundation counterparts, are allowed to provide grants to groups that lobby. As AFJ notes, private foundations have had this clarity from the IRS while public charities, including community foundations, have not.

Nan Aron, president of AFJ, stated in the press release: “This is an important clarification for the nonprofit sector … For the first time, public charities have guidance on how to treat grants to groups that lobby. We hope this clarification will give more grantmakers the confidence they need to fund aggressive advocacy."

Although the ruling only applies to AFJ, the press release states that it signals the IRS’s approach to evaluating similar re-granting work in the sector in the future. I certainly hope it does.

Since last year, we’ve produced a series of reports on the broad social benefits of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement under our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project. Although there is a clear distinction between advocacy and lobbying, and the rules governing each, lobbying isn’t a “four-letter’ word. It’s unfortunate that so many people just think of K-street “special interest” groups lobbying on behalf of mega-corporations. And right now, everyone’s hearing about PhRMA, and its unfettered influence on the healthcare reform conundrum. But lobbying is a perfectly valid and appropriate strategy. A lot of times, it’s a great tool for the advocacy and community organizing work that nonprofits do on issues such as access to better education, minimum wage and civil rights.

Congratulations to AFJ and a shout out to the IRS for clarifying the rules governing AFJ’s work. I share AFJ’s hope that this is a positive sign for IRS rules governing other public charities in our sector.

Do you agree that public foundations or public charities ought to be governed by the same rules that apply to private foundations? Share your thoughts with us in our comments – we’d love to hear from you!

Niki Jagpal is research & policy director 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: Friday, September 04, 2009

On August 27, 2009, the California Endowment announced that it will allocate $4 million in support of a statewide campaign that seeks to encourage participation in the upcoming 2010 U.S. census, especially among “hard to count” populations. As described in the press release, these populations include some of the state’s “most vulnerable residents – low-income communities and communities of color.” It also noted that California houses 10 of the country’s 50 hardest to count counties, which are “home to large populations that have been historically underrepresented in the census, including immigrants, people of color, low-income communities, rural areas and those who live in multi-family housing.” The Endowment’s work will target explicitly these 10 communities in an effort to bolster participation among these historically marginalized groups.

Kudos to the California Endowment for recognizing the importance of counting each person for the Census for all the reasons mentioned in the press release. And even more, I applaud this grantmaker for focusing its efforts on the ten counties with those populations that would otherwise remain excluded.

Social inclusion is important for so many reasons and it has the power to bring us all together in ways that benefit all our communities. Being counted is the first step toward being included in a community or a society. If focusing on underrepresented communities in ten counties in California has the kind of ripple effect on various facets of wellbeing described in the press release, what would the world look like if all foundations identified explicitly the intended beneficiaries of their grants, prioritizing the most vulnerable in their work? Maybe those most disenfranchised one day wouldn’t be so hard to count.

I’m also encouraged by the fact that the Endowment will work collaboratively with other funders. Dr. Robert K. Ross, president and CEO of the Endowment praised the California Community Foundation, which announced recently that it would fund nonprofits working to encourage census participation in Los Angeles. One of this community foundation’s guiding principles is a commitment to collaboration because problems are best addressed when ordinary citizens are civically engaged and included in the process of addressing challenges, along with institutions and communities. That’s exactly why we began our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project – we all benefit when ordinary citizens are civically active and engaged.

The Funders Census Initiative is a great example of foundations working collaboratively. This self-described ad hoc working group is “committed to stimulating interest in the 2010 Census among funders and their grantees. It strives to move both groups to support, contribute, and engage in efforts for a fair and accurate decennial count, with a focus on hard-to-count communities.”

These are very encouraging trends in philanthropy during a challenging time for our sector. If more members of our civic sector begin to see the value of working in relationship rather than in isolation, we could bolster our impact and ride out the current challenges we’re facing.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in our comments!

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

posted on: Wednesday, August 19, 2009

by Julia Craig

A recent blog post on The Plain Dealer identified the ways in which nonprofits are demonstrating social impact to stay competitive in an increasingly challenging fundraising marketplace. As foundations and other donors tighten their belts, nonprofits must compete for fewer dollars while facing greater need. This is a story that’s been told many times during this recession.

For nonprofits like those in Ohio under scrutiny to demonstrate their worth funders, what does impact mean? Big Brothers Big Sisters tracked participants and found that adults who participated in the program as children tended to be better educated, wealthier, and have stronger relationships than peers with a similar background who were not mentored through the program. This type of study is useful for a nonprofit as it demonstrates to funders that their support contributes to success.

For smaller nonprofits without a national affiliate, conducting such research could be financially infeasible. And what about those nonprofits working on changing the system rather than providing services and individual advocacy?

NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project has found demonstrable return on investment for grantmakers giving to advocacy and organizing. In New Mexico and North Carolina, a small sample of advocacy and organizing groups reaped billions of dollars in benefits for their communities. Our mixed methodology captures both quantitative impacts (such as passing a state Earned Income Tax Credit) and qualitative benefits (such as reducing the legal limit of uranium in groundwater). However, there is still debate in the field as to how best to measure impact, and what that word even means.

Sean Stannard-Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy recently sparked a lively debate on high performance and high impact nonprofits. He argued that a high performance nonprofit is directly observable: it is well-run and efficient with strong leadership and good management, while a high impact nonprofit is one that has a sustained impact on its community. This may not be observable except in retrospect. Stannard-Stockton’s post generated a flurry of discussion and dissent, leading John Macintosh of SeaChange Capital Partners to post a rebuttal. He contended that a high performance nonprofit “has a high impact program that is likely to be able to deliver over time under a variety of changing conditions.”

My question is, is impact always about meeting the goals of a given activity or organization? As part of the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project, we asked groups to give us examples of instances when they didn’t achieve their goals but still gained from a given campaign. Many shared stories of not winning a legislative battle, but were able to build relationships with lawmakers, cultivate leadership skills, strengthen organizational knowledge of the legislative process, and feel better prepared for the next opportunity to ensure lawmakers heard their constituents’ voices.

So in figuring out ways to measure the impact of our organizations, let’s not forget about these “soft” successes.

• Nonprofits in Northeast Ohio are being required to provide hard facts to get funding [The Plain Dealer]
• High Performance vs. High Impact Nonprofits [Tactical Philanthropy]
• A Rebuttal & an Example of a High Performance Organization [Tactical Philanthropy]

Julia Craig is research assistant 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, June 08, 2009

By Lisa Ranghelli

Where I live in Western Massachusetts, tapping maple trees is a livelihood for some and a hobby for others. During the fleeting weeks of sap season, I look forward to putting a tap into a tree and seeing the clear sweet liquid immediately begin to flow into the bucket. The work to collect that sap and turn it into syrup is a labor of love, but there is nothing more satisfying than pouring your own maple syrup over pancakes hot off the griddle.

Tapping individual donors also requires hard work and persistence, but the payoff is equally gratifying, and no doubt more lasting than the time it takes to swallow those delicious bites of syrup-laden pancake.

After all, that’s where the money is: three-quarters of all charitable giving is done by individuals, dwarfing foundation grantmaking. As nonprofit recipients have pointed out, there tends to be a lot less paperwork and more flexibility involved with private donations compared with institutional grants. Yet, a survey of progressive individual donors found that while the vast majority does support organizing, 42 percent of them focus less than 25 percent of their giving on community organizing.

Here enters the Linchpin Campaign. Linchpin, a project of the Center for Community Change, is the brainchild of NCRP board member Marjorie Fine, who is determined to help organizing groups raise more funds from major donors. Fine has extensively surveyed progressive donors about what they fund and why. Now the Linchpin Campaign has released a guide that draws on these survey findings and the collective wisdom of donors and fundraisers to help social justice organizations access individual wealth. Untapped: How Community Organizers Can Develop and Deepen Relationships with Major Donors and Raise Big Money was written by Joan Minieri, an award-winning community organizer and author. The guide has hands-on tools to help organizers apply their organizing skills and knowledge to the task of donor cultivation and engagement.

Untapped reinforces some of NCRP’s own findings about institutional philanthropy – that many donors believe it is difficult to measure the impacts of organizing. And even though donors want to make a difference, they may not see organizing as a cost-effective strategy to achieve tangible results. The guide offers practical advice on how to alter these perceptions. Fine believes that now is an excellent time to fundraise, despite the economy:

There is so much heightened awareness about community organizing and civic participation right now, and whether economic conditions are up or down, people with wealth have money and they continue to give. Untapped resources for community organizing lie with individuals—individuals who want to give and who are looking for opportunities where their dollars can make a real difference.

Like so many maples trees lining a country road, individual donors are waiting to be tapped …

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

posted on: Tuesday, June 02, 2009

By Lisa Ranghelli

The Beldon Fund officially closed its doors on May 31, 2009. But it left behind an infrastructure of advocacy groups that already have achieved significant impacts and have the capacity to continue to make a difference on the issues Beldon’s founder cares about–the environment and environmental health.

In 1998 John Hunting, Beldon’s founder, infused the Foundation with $100 million and committed to spend down that investment in ten years. The foundation’s leaders decided that the most effective way to move the needle on environmental issues in such a short time would be to support advocacy. Beldon used strategic approaches to its advocacy funding, focusing on a handful of states to concentrate its grantmaking. During that decade Beldon’s leaders also decided to incorporate support for non-partisan voter engagement to amplify the power of its advocacy partners. One area where Beldon saw tremendous progress in a decade was in Americans’ understanding of the risks of toxic chemicals all around them – in their homes, their children’s’ schools, their cosmetics. One former Beldon grantee, Toxic Free NC, offers an example of statewide impact from support for advocacy. As highlighted in NCRP’s recent report on advocacy and organizing in North Carolina, Toxic Free and its allies have prevented and reduced North Carolinians’ exposure to pesticides and cleaning chemicals.

The foundation’s revamped website is chock full of lesson learned, case studies, tips and resources for other funders and advocates. The foundation is refreshingly honest about efforts that were less successful, like its six-year investment in Florida, which did not result in the development of effective statewide advocacy leadership on environmental issues. By sharing its observations on why this effort failed, Beldon is helping advance knowledge in the field. Let’s hope more foundations follow their lead, so that both support for advocacy and also sharing of information, warts and all, becomes the norm rather than the exception.

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

posted on: Tuesday, May 26, 2009

by Julia Craig

As The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported last week, a recent study from Funders for Gay and Lesbian Issues (FGLI) found that grantmaking to LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer)* causes is expected to grow in 2009. In late April, FLGI surveyed 33 grantmakers who give significantly to LGBTQ causes and found that while some were planning to scale back, the difference was more than made up by those planning to increase their giving this year.

The study – LGBTQ Grantmaking by U.S. Foundations (2007) – examined data from 2007 grantmaking, the last year for which data is available. It found that grantmaking to LGBTQ causes increased 18 percent that year to $77.2 million from 293 U.S. grantmakers. Despite this good news, overall giving in this category remains low.

When preparing data for Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best (Criteria), NCRP found that in the aggregate, just 0.2 percent of foundation funding from our sample went to the LGBTQ community between 2004 and 2006. While there is no Census data on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the U.S. population, the American Community Survey does provide a proxy for same-sex households. Gaydemographics.org estimated that same-sex households accounted for about 1.14 percent of U.S. households in 2004. Single LGBTQ individuals likely represent a much larger proportion of the population.

Despite increases in recent history, overall giving remains remarkably low. The recent FGLI study reported that ten foundations accounted for nearly half of the funding in 2007. Further, ten large, national charities received a quarter of the total support. FGLI found that 10 percent of the funding went to directly benefit LGBTQ individuals (rather than organizations representing this constituency). As part of the Values chapter of Criteria, NCRP recommends grantmakers designate at least 25 percent of their funding for marginalized communities, broadly defined. LGBTQ communities are included in this definition.

What types of work are LGBTQ groups that receive foundation support undertaking? As part of a series of reports under the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project, NCRP has documented the impact of advocacy and organizing groups in New Mexico and North Carolina. In New Mexico, Equality New Mexico successfully campaigned to amend the state’s nondiscrimination clause to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” in its protected categories. In North Carolina, Equality NC partnered with non-traditional allies such as the state ARC to help pass House legislation protecting kids from being bullied in public schools. Equality NC also has worked each year since 2004 to defeat a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, civil union or any other kind of same-sex relationship recognition. North Carolina is currently the only state in the South without such a ban. These impacts extend beyond the LGBTQ community – a constitutional ban could impact unmarried heterosexual couples, and all school children would be protected under anti-bullying legislation.

It’s great news that FGLI has found that support for LGBTQ causes is expected to increase over the coming year, particularly in light of the recession and the fact that many grantmakers are announcing cutbacks or focusing on meeting immediate needs. However, as NCRP’s data analysis shows, overall giving is incredibly low, and few foundations are supporting the direct engagement of LGBTQ constituencies at the local and state level, particularly those of color.

Julia Craig is research assistant 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.

* FGLI defines “LGBTQ” this way. NCRP defines it as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning.”

posted on: Friday, May 22, 2009

By Lisa Ranghelli

“I’m just more aware of the nitty-gritty of needs that happen every day. I just feel like, now, I’m … on the front line.”

This quote from a giving circle member speaks to the knowledge and sense of community engagement that donors develop when they participate in collective philanthropy. And in doing so, giving circle members follow many of the philanthropic values and practices NCRP promotes.

According to a new report, The Impact of Giving Together, individual donors in giving circles gave more strategically than a control group of donors. Specifically, giving circle members were more likely to: give to causes that advance a vision of change; support general operating expenses; make multi-year gifts; and take into consideration cultural differences, race, class and gender when deciding which nonprofits to support.

The report, written by Dr. Angela Eikenberry and Jessica Bearman, also found that giving circle donors give to a wider array of types of nonprofits than do traditional donors. Giving circle members are more likely to support groups concerned with women, ethnic and minority groups, the arts, and culture or ethnic awareness. And they are more likely to give to “other” causes such as the environment, advocacy, neighborhood development and international aid. Interestingly, the more engaged a donor becomes in a giving circle, the more that person becomes involved in community problem-solving and efforts to change government policies.

Giving circle members gain “a better understanding of the nonprofits operating in their communities and internationally, as well as an understanding of the issues these nonprofits face in serving their constituencies.” This may well explain why their funding practices are more strategic.

As some foundation and interest group leaders decry the values and aspirational goals of NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best, giving circles actually embody many of them, from general operating and multi-year funding approaches to support for diverse communities and policy change strategies.

Perhaps there are lessons here for institutional philanthropy. Foundation trustees may want to ask themselves: Am I aware of the ‘nitty gritty needs’ and the ‘frontline’ issues being faced by the constituencies I care about? Do I really have a good understanding of what it takes for the nonprofits I support to be successful? Am I as knowledgeable as I could be about the issues I seek to address?

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

posted on: Thursday, May 14, 2009

by Lisa Ranghelli

North Carolina stands out for its especially favorable organizing climate. As the 2008 elections signaled, the state is undergoing a major political shift, with growing cities and a rising new immigrant population creating a new organizing landscape.

- Institute for Southern Studies

When nonprofit organizations and foundations partner to tackle urgent issues in North Carolina, they can achieve tremendous success—especially when they use public policy advocacy and engage affected constituencies in the problem-solving process.

- National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

Two reports released within weeks of each other point to promising signs in North Carolina. The Institute for Southern Studies recently published Social Justice Organizing in the South. The Institute produced the report with support from the Hill-Snowdon Foundation and New World Foundation, as part of the Southern Scan Research Project. The report looked at demographic, economic, political and social justice organizing trends in six southern states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina. The Institute’s research concluded that North Carolina stood out as holding potential for foundations to have an impact in the South through support for social justice organizing. The authors found that North Carolina is strategically important because of its political, economic and social role in the South; its favorable climate and infrastructure of support for organizing; and its density of strong existing and emerging social justice organizations that have a track record of impact.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy just released Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina. This report, authored by me and Julia Craig, documented the advocacy and organizing impacts of 13 organizations over a five year period, with impressive results. The research demonstrated that, collectively, the groups achieved at least $1.8 billion in monetary benefits for North Carolinians. These benefits included new wages for workers, affordable housing for the elderly and disabled, health services for the uninsured and individuals with HIV/AIDS, and jobs and job training for youth, just to give a few examples. (Another example can be found in my recent blog post.)

The report found that the groups collectively devoted $20.4 million to their advocacy and organizing efforts, providing a monetary return on investment of $89 for each dollar invested in these strategies. Many nonmonetary impacts were equally significant, including cleaner air and water, reduced exposure to toxic chemicals for agricultural workers and school children, and hospital visitation rights for same-sex caregivers. The civic engagement return on investment was also important, as the groups engaged tens of thousands of ordinary residents in the democratic process, building bridges across race, class, ethnicity, age, gender and other divides.

Both reports highlighted the important role philanthropy plays in North Carolina. In discussing the favorable climate for organizing, the Institute’s Southern Scan noted that “North Carolina also has a strong social justice infrastructure, including funders like The Babcock Foundation and Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation…” The report also mentioned the A.J. Fletcher Foundation and some community foundations as supporters of social justice organizing in the state. The NCRP report found that 86 percent of the funding that the 13 groups collectively allocated to advocacy and organizing—$17.5 million over five years—came from foundations. Philanthropic support was critical to their success.

Yet, both reports also found that much more foundation investment is needed to take advantage of the opportunities for change in North Carolina. The Southern Scan noted that among six southern states, there are only four foundations with annual giving of $1 million or more that devote “significant resources” to social justice organizing. Thus, organizations remain somewhat dependent on national and non-Southern funding sources that may be less familiar with historical dynamics unique to the region and with the capacity needs of local communities. The NCRP report found that many organizations doing important work and engaging marginalized constituencies are severely under-resourced, often operating with little or no paid staff. This was particularly true in the rural eastern part of the state.

Together, these two reports paint a picture of great accomplishment and greater potential, hinging on enough philanthropic support to solidify capacity. Ripe fruit for the picking.

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

posted on: Monday, May 11, 2009

by Yna C. Moore

I found some pretty sobering numbers on the CDC website:
- 14 percent of women aged 18 years or older are in fair or poor health
- 62 percent of women aged 20 years or older are overweight
- 33 percent of women aged 20 years or older have hypertension
- Heart Disease, diabetes and stroke are among the top causes of death among women, no matter the race.

Doctors and scientists in the biomedical sciences continue their untiring efforts to find the latest cures, technologies, procedures and preventative interventions for the numerous diseases that plague humanity. But no matter how breathtaking a discovery, there continues what seems to be a ginormous wall between science and the sick: that wall is called “access denied.” Sadly, systemic and institutional barriers continues to exist that prevent many from benefiting from the fruits of science. Critical drugs and medical procedures are available only for those who can afford the enormous cost. Many in need do not have health insurance, and even those that do cannot necessarily afford the co-insurance and other out-of-pocket expenses for specialized procedures, medications and other long-term care.

In a Reuters article yesterday, Julie Steenhuysen reported that “seven out of 10 women have no insurance, not enough insurance or are in debt because of medical bills.” She also noted a recent study by researchers from The Commonwealth Fund that found that women are hit harder by rising health costs because “they have lower average incomes and spend more on healthcare than men, and because they use the health system more often than men.”

A series of reports by NCRP titled Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities includes stories of how nonprofit community advocates and organizers are helping to tear down the wall. For example, in North Carolina, a number of local groups provide specialty services for the under- and uninsured, secure additional resources for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment within the state, and create prescription drug assistance programs for lower-income senior citizens. In New Mexico, the study documented efforts to secure state and federal funding for Medicaid and beef up health services for Native Americans. These and other efforts were made possible by foundation grants, which provided the majority of funds for the work in these two sites.

As we mark National Women’s Health Week, we urge foundations to look at bold and innovative ways to help knock down the giant wall and in its place build a bridge between discovery and those who could benefit from the breakthroughs.

Yna C. Moore is communications director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).