posted on: Friday, November 06, 2009

by Yna C. Moore

Many in the philanthropy world is in the midst of some soul searching – What is philanthropy? What is the role of philanthropy in the world today? How do foundations – of all shapes and sizes - fit in the complex world that makes up the charitable sector? Are there things we can do better? If so, what does “better” look like?

In the article “Philanthropy’s Commitment to the Common Good” published in Responsive Philanthropy, Alison Goldberg, who coordinates Wealth for the Common Good, talks about the dual purpose of private philanthropy – to promote the common good and to serve the interests of wealthy families. Wealth for the Common Good is a network of wealthy individuals and business leaders who support policies that promote economic equity and fair taxes.

She writes, “As long as private philanthropy exists, it’s likely there will be a need to accommodate the interests of donors and their descendents and strike a balance between personal priorities and the common good. But right now, that balance is skewed in the wrong direction.”

She raises three interesting points:

• The higher the taxes on high-income and wealthy families, the more money is given to foundations
• Philanthropy can’t be a substitute for government to provide critical services, but government rely on income and taxes to generate the money to support these efforts.
• Our current tax system may appear progressive, but it’s really not. Tax cuts for the wealthy from the past 30 years has shifted the burden to wage earners.

Read Alison’s full article and other postings on philanthropy’s role in society.

Tell us what you think:

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

posted on: Thursday, October 29, 2009

by Julia Craig

In a the current issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Mark Rosenman, project director of Caring to Change, challenges foundations to be more thoughtful in their contributions to the common good. “How Even Great Foundations Can Do More for the Common Good” outlines the ways in which philanthropy can be more creative and achieve “more substantial and sustainable results.”

Caring to Change talked with more than 150 foundation and nonprofit staff members to gather ideas for increasing grantmaker impact. Rosenman writes that the results were clear: people in the sector agree that philanthropy “must do more for the common good.”

But what does this mean? Rosenman uses the example of the controversy that erupted when Leona Helmsly directed her foundation to spend its billions to care for dogs to help us understand. He suggests that a creative interpretation of this imperative would lead to more public positive outcomes than simply providing exclusively care for dogs. For example, providing support to organizations counseling people who are cruel to animals, and helping them to come to terms with dehumanizing aspects of their own lives would reduce the abuse of dogs. Addressing the reasons why lower-income people and minorities do not have access to veterinarian school would open opportunities for a new segment of the population, promoting the common good.

Rosenman’s suggestions for creativity and a strategic approach to ensure a foundation’s work is providing broad public benefits echoes targeted universalism. “Targeted universalism” holds that only by identifying explicitly those with the least wealth and opportunity as the beneficiaries can policies and programs that seek to improve the common good have the most impact.

In other words, grantmakers cannot rely on trickle-down general public programs, and while a rising tide may lift all boats, it also serves to maintain the status quo when it comes to structural inequalities. For more on this, please read previous blog posts on targeted universalism and the values chapter of Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best.

Rosenman calls for collective action for the common good, writing, “The commitment to define and act on common-good values ought not to be seen as a theoretical exercise. Rather, it is a prudent decision that allows foundations to move beyond narrow interests and self-regard to realize a society in which all may prosper. In fact, it is precisely because of the common good that individuals may themselves be secure in society’s benefits and in their own accomplishments and rewards.” (Emphasis added).

How do you think philanthropy can best serve the common good? Do you think foundations with specific directives could be more creative in their execution of those directives? We’d love to hear what you think in the comments!

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.

posted on: Friday, September 11, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

NCRP Board member Marjorie Fine just released a fantastic new book: Change Philanthropy: Candid Stories of Foundations Maximizing Results through Social Justice. Alicia Epstein Korten is the author, and Margie, in her role as director of the Linchpin Campaign at the Center for Community Change, was the project director.

I reviewed an early draft of the book, and just got a chance to look through the finished product. The great thing about Change Philanthropy is that it tells stories; it doesn’t make an argument with statistics. The stories – case studies, really – bring to life the real challenges and exhilarations of grantmaking that seeks to address critical social issues of our day. Program staff and trustees of foundations will find new insights for their own work, and nonprofit leaders and fundraisers will get a rare and candid look inside the inner workings of grantmaking institutions.

The ten grantmakers featured in the book range from very small to very large and include independent foundations, family foundations and grantmaking public charities. They are:

• Discount Foundation
• Schott Foundation
• Needmor Fund
• Jacobs Family Foundation
• Ford Foundation
• Open Society Institute
• Liberty Hill Foundation
• Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
• Global Fund for Women
• Gulf Coast Fund for Community Renewal and Ecological Health

So if you’re looking for a good book on social justice philanthropy this fall, pick up a copy. It’s available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Books-A-Million. (And, no, I don’t get any royalties for making this pitch!)

Are there other books on social justice philanthropy you’d recommend? Please share in your comments!

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

posted on: Monday, June 15, 2009

By Julia Craig

This is part of a series of postings that takes a deeper look at the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View other posts in the series.

Myth #4: Criteria pushes for “racial quotas” in philanthropy.

In a March 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal article subtitled “Activists want to redistribute philanthropic wealth based on racial quotas,” Naomi Schaefer-Riley declared NCRP an enemy of philanthropy before having even read Criteria. Other critics were quick to follow, suggesting that NCRP was calling on grantmakers to appropriate their grants based on the race of the intended beneficiary.

Truth: As we state in Criteria, “By intentionally elevating vulnerable populations in their grantmaking, foundations benefit society and strengthen our democracy. Prioritizing marginalized communities brings about benefits for the public good.”

As Janine Lee, CEO of the Southern Partners Fund, wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “We shouldn’t invest in marginalized communities because it’s politically correct or because public subsidies obligate us to do so. We should invest in disadvantaged communities because it has the greatest impact on the things we care about.”

In other words, if grantmakers focus on the “general public” in their grantmaking and believe that the benefits will trickle down to those on the margins, they may have some impact. However, if grantmakers utilize targeted universalism, which provides a much deeper understanding of diversity to include other bases for marginalization than just race, they will more likely impact not only the targeted constituencies but the broader public.

Criterion I: Values states: A grantmaker practicing Philanthropy at Its Best serves the public good by contributing to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.

• Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.
• Provides at least 25 percent of its grant dollars for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society.

It is the first benchmark in the chapter that has drawn the most ire from critics. This criterion is born of a belief that who benefits from philanthropy matters, and that foundations could be doing so much more to be inclusive in their grantmaking.

NCRP’s research found that just one in three grant dollars is intended to benefit disadvantaged communities. We made our definition as inclusive as possible given the data from the Foundation Center. In total, 11 groups comprised what we call marginalized communities in Criteria: economically disadvantaged; ethnic and racial minorities; women and girls; people with AIDS; people with disabilities; aging, elderly and senior citizens; immigrants and refugees; crime or abuse victims; offenders and ex-offenders; LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning) and; single parents.

That so few philanthropic dollars are intended to benefit such a broad group of constituents has shocked some, and well it should. Philanthropy serves the public good by focusing on those with the least wealth, opportunity and power. Previous posts by Aaron Dorfman on Michael Eisner’s recent gift to the California Institute of the Arts, and by Yna Moore on women’s health demonstrate that such inclusive approach to grantmaking can be done across the various issues and causes that different foundations care about.

Given the growing income inequality in the U.S., the changing demographic landscape and the growing wealth disparity between whites and non-whites, there is so much that needs to be done. And we in philanthropy can do better. Criteria challenges grantmakers to think beyond linear problem-solving models and utilize systems thinking, which views causation as reciprocal, mutual and cumulative. NCRP’s exploration of targeted universalism and systems thinking provides grantmakers with tools to increase their impact on the complicated social problems they set out to address.

In addition to the 11 marginalized groups identified in Criteria, what are the others constituent communities that don’t see the benefits from philanthropy? Do you have a story to share of inclusive grantmaking at work?

posted on: Thursday, June 11, 2009

By Julia Craig

Jeff Raikes, the new CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, gave the Associated Press an interview last week in which he acknowledged the importance of experimentation and innovation in philanthropy.

For eight years, the foundation invested $2 billion in the U.S. to test the theory that smaller schools would produce higher graduation rates. Many of the foundation-supported schools did see an increase in graduation rates; however, overall student achievement and college readiness remained about the same. Following a study on the L.A. Unified School District that found a teacher having a certificate did not impact student achievement, the foundation shifted course and is now focusing on individual teacher quality.

Raikes highlighted this as an example of the foundation’s willingness to experiment and adapt. “Almost by definition, good philanthropy means we're going to have to do some risky things, some speculative things to try and see what works and what doesn't,” he told the AP.

The Gates Foundation has been criticized for its heavy reliance on technological solutions in the developing world in healthcare and agriculture. However, the willingness of the foundation to acknowledge and learn from mistakes is crucial; doing so helps build the knowledge and experience of the philanthropic sector as a whole. As Raikes noted in his interview, social innovation is largely the purview of the nonprofit sector. “We're going to try some things and I'm quite confident that some things will succeed and I'm quite confident that some things will fail,” he said.

Given the complexity of the challenges of education, health, development, and so forth, foundations being willing to experiment and take risks is a key to finding innovative solutions. Do you think the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been sufficiently willing to take risks and to learn from their mistakes? If you ran the foundation, what new approaches would you want to test out?

posted on: Monday, June 01, 2009

In the Summer issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, Dr. Angela Eikenberry addresses the growing field of consumer-driven philanthropy (e.g. the Product Red campaign supported by The Gap, Apple, and Starbucks). “The Hidden Costs of Cause Marketing” details the ways in which such campaigns actually weaken the social fabric of philanthropy. The article is well worth the full read.

Consumption philanthropy, as Dr. Eikenberry calls it, serves the dual purpose of promoting a product and providing some social benefit through charitable donation. It is highly accessible and convenient; simply by choosing to buy one type of yogurt over another, consumers can easily donate to the causes they deem important. However, despite the success of cause marketing, she warns:

“Consumption philanthropy individualizes solutions to collective social problems, distracting our attention and resources away from the neediest causes, the most effective interventions, and the act of critical questioning itself. It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless. And it obscures the links between markets—their firms, products, and services—and the negative impacts they can have on human well-being. For these reasons, consumption philanthropy compromises the potential for charity to better society” (Emphasis added).

Take the example of water. Some bottled water companies donate clean water in developing countries based on the number of bottles of their water consumed in the West. A consumer chooses the brand that donates clean water and feels good knowing that she is helping someone across the world access a basic necessity. However, the consumer is still using a disposable plastic bottle and she is still contributing to the depletion of limited resources by choosing the bottle of water taken from a spring rather than filling her own re-useable cup or bottle. Cause marketing does not challenge her to think about the consequences of consumption; it instead rewards her. And when that consumer receives a solicitation seeking funds to build wells in a developing country, she is less inclined to give, feeling she has already done her part through her consumption habits.

The passive giving of cause marketing as secondary to consumption stands in stark contrast to the Dr. Eikenberry’s report on giving circles Lisa Ranghelli wrote about earlier this month. Giving circles allow people of moderate means to pool their money and have a greater impact on and deeper understanding of the causes they care about.

While highly successful campaigns have raised millions of dollars and attracted the attention of celebrities, it detaches people from the purpose of philanthropy: to provide collective solutions to social problems. As nonprofit organizations around the country struggle to cope with the current recession and increasing need, cause marketing deserves a critical look.

posted on: Friday, March 13, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

The L.A. Times reported Monday that Michael Eisner made a $1.25 million gift to the California Institute of the Arts from his family foundation.

NCRP’s critics are likely expecting me to ask why in the world Mr. Eisner is supporting the arts when he should be supporting anti-poverty efforts.

But I’m not going to criticize his gift. In fact, I want to praise him for it. His gift is a perfect example of how foundations can simultaneously promote the causes they care about (in this case, the arts) and benefit marginalized communities.

The grant is for bringing arts instruction to Los Angeles schoolchildren, most of whom are from low-income families.

There’s no telling whether or not Mr. Eisner has seen NCRP’s latest report, but this is exactly the kind of creative thinking we hoped to inspire when we published our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and called for foundations to dedicate at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of economically and socially disadvantaged groups. If you’re an arts funder, we’re not saying you should start funding social services for the poor. We are saying you should look for ways to include underserved communities in your grantmaking, within the context of your mission.

You can read more about philanthropic support for vulnerable members of our society in Chapter 1 of Criteria, available for free at www.ncrp.org/paib.

Do you know of other arts-focused foundations that have used creative grantmaking to bring the arts to lower-income and other socially disadvantaged groups? Please share the story!

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: 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: Tuesday, October 28, 2008

by Pete Manzo

How foundations should adapt their grantmaking to help nonprofits in this environment has been a hot topic in the philanthropic world in recent weeks, and going as far back as last spring.

Foundation funding won't drop as sharply as the Dow, thankfully. Overall, foundation giving is likely to stay flat or decline slightly, as the Foundation Center’s review of giving through several past downturns indicates. Of course, for some subset of foundations, grantmaking may decline considerably.

Far more importantly for human services nonprofits, however, government funding is almost certain to fall sharply over the next year or two. At the same time, service providers are likely to see demand for their services rise at the same time their resources fall.

There have been many suggestions among the philanthropy commentariat of different things foundations can do to help nonprofits get through the hard times. I’ve tried to read as many of them as I could, and no doubt I’ve missed many. Here are a few samples:

• Chronicle of Philanthropy listing of articles on nonprofits and economic pressures
• COF open letter on how foundations can respond to the financial crisis
• COF survey report on foundation responses to downturn (May 2008)

One suggestion I haven’t seen, though, is a call to release restrictions on grants, and proactively contact grantees and invite them to reprogram the use of restricted grant funds. This might be the quickest, most powerful way for foundations to help their grantees.

The for-profit financial world, ironically, began doing this nearly a year ago, as the dimensions of the subprime mortgage crisis became more clear. Countrywide, for example, began contacting mortgagee’s last fall and offering to modify their loans, to reduce the risk of default from adjustable rate mortgages. They are now on their second or third round of doing so, a massive undertaking described in this Los Angeles Times article.

Taking this strategy would pay more than just financial dividends. The added flexibility may be critically important to enabling grantees to weather the storm. Speed is also an important virtue here – existing grant funds can be reprogrammed much faster than new funds can be sought, or disbursed.

Perhaps just as important, the work involved in contacting grantees and offering to modify grant terms would promote a number of important goals, including:

• Increasing a foundation's understanding of the impact on their grantees, and providing grantees information about how the foundation is being affected and reacting at its end, which will help both parties plan for the future;
• Sharing information about options and opportunities that may be helpful to the foundation, the grantee and their respective partners and allies; and
• Strengthening relationships between a foundation and its grantees.
  

It also could lay the groundwork for increased trust and openness between foundations and nonprofits in the future. During the 2002 downturn, I participated in several panels on how nonprofits could deal with the economic slump, and I gave similar advice – that they should take stock of the alignment between what they thought they did best, what they thought their clients needed, what would best help the organization address those two factors, and what their funding allowed, and then they should go to their funders and make a pitch for reprogramming the funding they already had in hand. It was unrealistic, though, to expect many nonprofits to actually try this tack, both because of the power differential between nonprofits and their funders, and because of the uncomfortable “Sophie’s Choice” position it might put nonprofits in – they might not want to go on record with outsiders saying they think one of their programs is more important, or more effective, than others. Reaching out to grantees and offering to release restrictions can reduce those barriers and create a different dynamic for future conversations.

Is this a crazy idea? Just impractical? Other suggestions?

Pete Manzo is director of strategic initiatives at the Advancement Project.

posted on: Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Donors As Beneficiaries
By Gary Snyder


A recent article brings to our attention, once again, that corporate citizens and other donors are generously giving to charities that benefit political insiders and ostensibly, themselves.. The New York Times cites among others, the support for the symphony orchestra in Johnston, Pa, the beloved charity of Representative John Murtha.

There is typically a close relationship between the contributor and the politician. In this case, the major sponsors to the Congressman’s charity are two giant defense contractors ---General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. Murtha’s Congressional committee hands out lucrative defense contracts.

There are other types of relationships. Representative Joe Barton, a Texan established a charitable foundation and hands out grants within his district. An influential member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Joe Barton Family Foundation has a big donor, a major nuclear energy company, Exelon Corporation. The congressman’s daughter-in-law is the executive director of the foundation.

Over the years, we’ve seen U.S. Representative Alan Mollohan use donors and federal dollars--- at least $202 million--- to fund five nonprofits in Mollohan’s district, most of which were under his control. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has joined in steps to clean up pork barrel spending…apparently everybody else’s. The congressman has tucked $96 million worth of pet projects into next year's federal budget, including $450,000 for a campaign donor's foundation. Hoyer inserted into a 2008 education-spending bill for InTune Foundation Group, who’s Web site describes it as a music-education nonprofit group.
We’ve seen this practice at all levels of government. For example, Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent J. Fumo use of money from a nonprofit for personal and political purposes with some $17 million is in question.

Another example is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, of California, who set up a little-known nonprofit group that has paid for many of his international trips. Donations paid for his and aides' journeys to Israel, China, Japan, Canada and Europe on trips, described by the governor's office as trade missions, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Schwarzenegger solicited the $435,000 in gifts for the protocol foundation at a fundraiser. Only after ongoing inquiries did the Governor revealed for the first time the names of donors to the secretive nonprofit group.

The practice of unregulated contributions is pervasive. The one bad deed deserves another axiom seems to apply to the cozy relationship between politicos and their corporate and lobbying donors and benefactors. This seedy practice certainly needs further scrutiny.


Gary R. Snyder is the author of Nonprofits: On the Brink. His email is gary.r.snyder@gmail.com; website: www.garyrsnyder.com, phone: 248.324.3700.

posted on: Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Rural Louisiana left wondering after Ike and Gustav wreaks havoc

By Yna Moore

It’s been almost two weeks since Hurricanes Ike and Gustav battered the rural coastal parishes of Louisiana and most of the foundation world seems not to take notice.

True, Gustav and Ike were not the monster storms that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were in 2005. Perhaps there’s an assumption that the need for disaster assistance is less. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Rural Louisiana is home to many low-income families who lost homes and livelihoods, which are mostly farming, fishing and small family businesses, in the wake of Katrina and Rita. The area was still in the midst of rebuilding when the two recent hurricanes struck the area.

The effect of these hurricanes brings home one sad fact—disasters disproportionately affect the poor: those that can’t afford land; those that have nowhere else to go and no one else to turn to; those that rely on the help of others to survive; those that have no money to tackle on their own the daunting task of rebuilding.

Sister Helen Vinton, assistant executive director of the Southern Mutual Help Association and NCRP board member, informed us that the country’s foundations are largely absent in responding to the pleas for help from Louisiana’s rural communities despite great need.

So to foundations across the country, big and small: they need your help! This is your chance to have an impact on the lives of thousands of Americans struggling to rebuild and recover from these natural disasters. There are many nonprofit organizations in the frontlines that will put your foundation’s dollars to good and worthwhile use. Will you take heed?

Do you know of foundations who are responding to the needs of rural areas affected by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike? How can the country’s foundations best help relief and recovery efforts? Please, tell us about it!

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

posted on: Wednesday, September 03, 2008

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy to provide EPIP members with exclusive, cutting-edge policy briefings by conference call


Last month, Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) announced a new partnership with the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

EPIP and NCRP are working together to increase the effectiveness of foundations by ensuring that the next generation of grantmakers is informed and engaged in the cutting-edge public policy and research currently impacting philanthropy and nonprofits.

Through this new partnership, NCRP will deliver policy briefings via conference call that are custom-designed for emerging grantmakers. These briefings will be available exclusively to dues-paying members of the EPIP network.

In addition to briefings, EPIP will keep members informed of new NCRP research and publications, and EPIP members will be eligible for a 50% discount on NCRP membership. Information on how to access this discount is forthcoming.

The first briefing will address controversial public policy efforts to increase foundation support for nonprofits led by and working in communities of color. These efforts were targeted in the state of California and became part of the national discourse of philanthropy through the recently defeated legislation AB624 in the California legislature. This conference call will take place on Wednesday, September 24th, 2008. It will begin promptly at 4:00pm ET, and will run for one hour.

EPIP members interested in participating must RSVP to rsvp@epip.org. Use the following text as your subject line: “RSVP for 09.24.08 Phone Briefing”. Only individuals who RSVP will be provided with call-in information and materials. Participants in the EPIP network who wish to participate may join EPIP by clicking here.


About the Partners:

Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy seeks to strengthen the next generation of grantmakers, in order to advance effective social justice philanthropy. It serves a diverse membership of young and new foundation professionals through a network of chapters, professional and leadership development programs, and an advocacy voice on philanthropic effectiveness, generational change, and social justice issues in the field.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy promotes philanthropy that serves the public good, is responsive to people and communities with the least wealth and opportunity, and is held accountable to the highest standards of integrity and openness. Since 1976, NCRP has used research and advocacy to urge the philanthropic community to provide nonprofit organizations with essential resources and opportunities to effectively serve disadvantaged and disenfranchised populations and communities.

posted on: Thursday, August 21, 2008

by Niki Jagpal

Word: ‘Caucus’

Function: noun

Definition:

a) a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy;
b) a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause

On August 19, 2008, the Chronicle of Philanthropy (subscription required) reported that Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) created a Senate Philanthropy Caucus (SPC) “to look at ways to help foundations and charities.”

Schumer and Burr sent out a letter late last month ”strongly encouraging” their colleagues in the Senate to participate in the SPC. The letter highlights the important contributions institutional philanthropy has made to benefit broadly U.S. society. A critical observation made in the dear colleague letter is the enormous increase in foundation giving (estimated at $42.9 billion and reflecting a collective ten percent increase in giving by the U.S.’s 72,000 foundations compared to 2006). The letter notes a crucial role that nonprofits play in the communities they serve: “the knowledge and social and economic benefits that accrue to communities with strong nonprofits…almost defy quantification.”

The SPC complements the House-level Congressional Philanthropy Caucus (HPC) co-chaired by Rep. Robin Haynes (R-NC) and the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH). The House-level caucus was formed in the spring of 2007, following the Council on Foundations-sponsored annual Foundations on the Hill lobbying event in March 2007. As the Examiner reported then, one point of agreement between foundation executives and members of Congress was the need for Congress to better understand what foundations do.

The formation of the SPC is a positive sign for the U.S. charitable sector, indicating sustained interest in philanthropy and the nonprofit sector at Congress. But as the Chronicle noted, to date the HPC comprising 44 members has held one official meeting. In attendance? One Council on Foundation’s representative who gave an overview to some 20 Congressional aides and two House members. The topic? How foundations work. Viewed from the outside? Not particularly impressive.

The congressional philanthropy caucuses are positive developments and offer potentially powerful alliance between the government and the nonprofit sectors. More specifically, the explicit links among policy, communities and philanthropy are encouraging. For far too long, foundations and nonprofits alike have shied away from the historic roles of advocacy, civic engagement and community organizing in increasing access to the policy process and promoting participatory democracy.

But are philanthropy and nonprofits getting heightened Congressional attention because government is offloading its social responsibilities? Yes, the U.S. civil society sector has made lasting and positive contributions to communities; but philanthropy would do well to remember that it is the government’s role to provide basic services to its citizens during times of hardship and need, to create a more level playing field and to encourage a transparent, inclusive and truly participatory democracy. Takeaway lesson for foundations? It isn’t just Congress that needs to be educated about what you do; the public and your grantees also need to better understand what you do and do not do (do = = fund) because foundation dollars are partially public dollars as a result of the foregone tax revenue from foundations’ tax exempt status.

Discussing the newly revised IRS form 990 at the Georgetown University Law Center in April this year, Steven Miller, commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS, noted that the IRS would be “more aggressive” in monitoring the “efficiency and effectiveness” of charitable organizations, even though such monitoring is not expressly within the agency’s jurisdiction. Why not revise the 990 PF form to include the same accountability and governance data? This would build Congressional and public trust and knowledge of foundations but no revisions to the PF form appear imminent.

I’m hopeful that the Congressional Philanthropy Caucuses will fall under Merriam-Webster’s definition ‘b’ above and function as a group united around a common cause. But the roles of government, philanthropy and nonprofits must be clearly delineated to avoid government shirking its public responsibilities and foisting them onto the civil society sector instead. And we would all benefit from knowing more about what exactly it is that foundations do.

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

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: Tuesday, May 06, 2008

by Yna Moore

There's been a good amount of talk revolving around the future of the nonprofit sector and the next generation leaders.

Rosetta Thurman interviewed NCRP's field director Melissa Johnson for her blog Perspectives from the Pipeline on issues faced by emerging leaders in the nonprofit sector.

Asked about what she'd like to see changed in the nonprofit sector, she replies:

"I would like to see the nonprofit sector define itself and behave in ways that is rooted in the values of the work that we carry out. Why are we in this sector? What is the ultimate goal of our work as a whole? While we have failed and hopefully will not succeed in trying to run our organizations like corporate America, nonprofits exist to serve the public good, to be the connector between government service delivery mandates and the race for the have not’s this creates on the ground. We are the sector that can and should represent those most in need. I think we should all keep this at the forefront
as we truck along day-to-day in this imbalanced and unfair race. We should all
recognize that we have to work together to deflect this imbalance. And, most
importantly, we should remove our personal self-interest from the equation."

You can view the complete interview here.

This week, the staff from the country's foundations and nonprofits are gathered in the DC-area for the Council on Foundation's annual conference. With this year's event titled "Philanthropy's Vision: A Leadership Summit," one can hope that the next generation leaders in philanthropy see their role in making the sector more accountable, transparent and responsive to the needs of the diverse communities it serves.

Yna Moore in the communications director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Friday, May 02, 2008

by Niki Jagpal

On May 1, 2008, the Council on Foundations (COF) released the first in a series of reports “looking at the interaction between philanthropy and the economy.” Foundations Support Families Hit by Economic Downturn: Results of a Survey by the Council on Foundations (available for download on the COF website) states that “the vast majority of foundations (86 percent) support grantmaking that either directly or indirectly aids families, provides human services, assists lower income populations or supports economic development.” Indeed, the Foundation Center’s 2008 edition of Foundation Giving Trends notes that “[…] for the period 2003-2006, the economically disadvantaged registered the second fastest growth rate among all the major population groups (up 28.3 percent annually)” [Foundation Center, 2008, p. 42]. Highlights of this report are available for free download here.

At first glance, this is certainly welcome news, particularly the long-term trend data provided by the Foundation Center. However, the COF report is based entirely on self-reporting by their members. Moreover, of the total 1,841 COF members, 320 responded to a web-based survey, representing a 17.38 percent response rate. Further, while community foundations comprise 27 percent of COF membership, they comprised 41 percent of survey respondents. In other words, community foundations are disproportionately overrepresented in the COF survey sample.

In its discussion of foundation support to families impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis, the COF report states that community, corporate and independent foundations were more likely than family foundations to engage in grantmaking that supports such activities (16-17 percent compared to 12 percent). Indeed, the COF report concludes that over half (51 percent) of community foundations would decrease grantmaking over the coming year; only 46 percent would sustain their current levels of grantmaking for the economically disadvantaged.

Taken together, the two reports suggest a reduction in foundation giving aimed at benefiting the economically disadvantaged. Is that reflexive of foundations supporting families hard hit by the flagging US economy? One is left to wonder, especially when considering the COF report’s own cautionary note that “… while the majority of foundations say that the downturn in the economy will have no effect on their ability to maintain their grantmaking, this situations bears watching. In addition, the impacts of the subprime mortgage crisis are not fully known.”

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

posted on: Thursday, April 17, 2008

A California Assembly bill is causing quite a stir in the philanthropic and nonprofit worlds. Spurred by a series of studies by the Greenlining Institute, the bill, AB 624, sponsored by 23^rd District Assembly Member Joseph Coto (D-San Jose), would require California foundations with assets over $250,000,000 to collect and make public information about:

• the ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation of foundation board and staff members;
• the number of grants and grant dollars awarded to organizations reporting that 50% or more of their board or staff members are ethnic minorities;
• “the number of grants and grant dollars awarded to “organizations specifically serving African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islander, Caucasian, Latino, Native American, and Alaskan Native communities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities and other underrepresented communities”
• “the number of grants and grant dollars awarded to predominantly low-income communities"; and
  
• "the number and percentage of business contracts awarded to African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders, Caucasians, Latinos, Native Americans, and Alaskan Natives."

The current draft of the bill is available here.

The problem is, if the ultimate result sponsors hope to achieve is increased benefits from philanthropy flowing to either communities of color, or low income communities[1], compliance with the bill, as written, looks very unlikely to accomplish that.

First of all, complying with the bill would not be easy, both because of the fairly vague or uncertain definitions of the information to be collected, and also because of the amount of energy that would go into collecting that information, both at the foundations and on the part of their grantees. The bill is imperfectly drafted, so much so that the Nonprofit and Unincorporated Organizations Committee of the California Bar Association’s Business Law Section, a group of attorneys expert on exempt organization law, have issued a statement of opposition raising numerous objections, and concluding that the bill is “fatally flawed.”

The problem I see in the bill is that it does not require information be collected that would establish who is served by grant dollars (more on the feasibility, and wisdom, of trying to establish that below). Rather, it simply requires foundations to tally up the numbers, grant dollars and percentages and publish those. In its current form, a foundation could simply publish the aggregate figures (e.g., “300 grants, in the amount of $400 million, to organizations specifically serving communities of color”, or “250 grants, in the amount of $300 million, predominantly low income communities.” While it would be interesting to track whether those numbers go up or down, they are practically useless, otherwise, for advocates. The data likely wouldn’t provide any evidence that philanthropic support to low income people of color living in particular regions or geographic communities is rising or falling, or how the distribution of grant funds within those communities is shifting over time. (Also, the data likely would not be aggregated somewhere, so to get the bigger picture, advocates would have to cull information from dozens of foundation sites.)

As Aaron Dorfman, NCRP’s Executive Director, has pointed out in this space, if diversity in grantmaking is important, it should be measured. Opponents of the bill actually agree on this point, but object that the challenge will be how to measure it completely, and how to measure it in ways that are most useful to advocates for more responsive grantmaking. The leaders of The California Endowment, The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and The James Irvine Foundation all have published op-eds or letters to the editor opposing the bill. Ironically, these three foundations are among the handful of large foundations with statewide reach most prominent in pushing policy advocacy and systems change to benefit low income communities of color. The controversy over AB 624 seems to be an example of what a friend of mine calls “heated agreement,” where people who basically agree and should be pulling in the same direction instead divide and argue over minor points.

As Dr. Ross of the Endowment observes, for all the debate about transparency, “the real issues are: poverty, equity and opportunity in communities of color and other underserved communities.” If the purpose is to improve the use of philanthropy to tackle those challenges, we’ll need better information than AB 624 mandates, and advocates for more responsive grantmaking and leaders of foundations like the Endowment, Hewlett and Irvine should be able to come up with much better solutions by working together.

A better place to start would be making visible the flow of grant dollars to specific places, the demographic and other attributes of those places, and even the specific subsets of people served in those places. (Another irony: the specific reach of grants for policy advocacy or systems change will be harder to define, but this challenge can be solved, as I will explore in a future post). To do so, we’ll need to make the grants data already disclosed by foundations more accessible to advocates, and supplement that with data about the geographic and demographic reach of those grant funds. This would mean bringing the grants databases out from behind the firewalls of services like the Foundation Center or Foundation Search, or paying the costs of providing free public access to that data. It also would entail beginning to map the reach of grants. With a modest investment of time and resources, we can determine which census tracts are served by which organizations, and show the amount of grant dollars relative to the numbers of people living in an area or, more specifically, the particular characteristics of people actually served. This is not a technological pipedream, it can definitely be done[2], and likely for far less cost and effort than compliance with AB 624 would entail. The design and development of such a system, however, is something that can’t very well be done in advance through legislation.

In the end, AB 624 is unlikely to become law anytime soon (It has a rough road ahead in the California Senate, and if it passes both houses, Governor Schwarzenegger is likely to veto it.) That should give all supporters of responsive philanthropy, within foundations and the broader community, plenty of time to develop approaches more targeted to improving results for low income communities of color.

Peter Manzo is an NCRP board member and the Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Advancement Project, a civil rights advocacy organization based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of NCRP or the Advancement Project.

[1] 1) Oddly, there is no such straightforward statement on Greenlining Institute’s Web site that this is the purpose, as opposed to more generically making foundations more “effective and efficient.”
[2] 2) HealthyCity.org, a partnership of nonprofits in Los Angeles sponsored by the Advancement Project, already has built tools and methods for making the flow of grant dollars visible, for public agencies and private funders, to help them assess their grants in Los Angeles County and throughout California. (Full disclosure: I am a proud co-founder of HealthyCity.org.).

posted on: Friday, April 11, 2008

By Niki Jagpal

In a recent Yuma Sun op-ed Dr. Tibor R. Machan makes some striking arguments about how the corporate welfare state leads to irresponsibility as evidenced by the behavior of corporations that are bailed out by the federal government. Citing the recent federal response to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Machan argues that corporate irresponsibility parallels personal irresponsibility. He asserts:

“[…] The injustice of the welfare state there is also the fact that it leads to
massive corruption throughout a society and severe misconceptions about what it
really takes to make a reasonably prosperous life for oneself, both in personal
and business affairs.”

Dr. Machan is correct to highlight the “rip-offs that constitute the welfare state where politicians and bureaucrats extort funds from innocent citizens so as to support unsuccessful business enterprises.” Yet, his comparison of the federal bailout of big business deserves at least two additional qualifications. First, corporations are granted personhood rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, as noted by Joel Bakan and other scholars. Yes, the same Amendment that was intended to grant all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, equal citizenship rights and protections, provides the same guarantees to corporations. Second, Dr. Machan fails to note the inherent contradiction of the federal government’s ideology and practice. Republicans repeatedly call for limited government, contraction of the social safety net and emphasis on personal responsibility. Yet, it is a Republican administration and its officials that have infused billions of taxpayer dollars into the failing banks to avoid a total economic collapse.

Lastly, while Dr. Machan is correct to compare corporations to individuals in light of the 14th Amendment protections given to big business, I disagree with his statements that our welfare system provides an incentive for individuals to abdicate a sense of personal responsibility. Anybody familiar with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 knows that the complete overhaul of our social safety net programs resulted in measures that mandate “personal responsibility” eligibility criteria for welfare benefits. The replacement of AFDC by TANF is probably the most well-known example. Changes made during the 1996 welfare reforms require TANF recipients to demonstrate that they have either worked or actively searched for work to remain eligible for assistance, including those working single-parent headed households, which Dr. Machan would define as, “people who create huge families they are unable to support on their own.”

Dr. Machan’s critique of the government’s bailout of the big business points to two important issues: the personhood rights afforded corporations and the abuse of federal tax dollars to do so. But his comparison of individual welfare programs to the recent federal response is falsely premised and only serves to perpetuate the myth of the ‘welfare queen’ and the lack of any idea of a social contract that obligates government to care for those in need. Dr. Machan asserts that philanthropy and charity should provide those in times of need with assistance but his piece raises more questions than it answers. How can philanthropy or individual charity possibly address the broad needs of those least well-off when our tax dollars are subsidizing bad business practices? The nonprofit sector is not a substitute for the public sector, nor could it be – philanthropy’s contribution to the nonprofit sector is dwarfed by tax revenues. It’s like forcing apples to become oranges on many levels, though it does remind me of the cover of Stephen Levitt’s Freakonomics.

Niki Jagpal is research director at NCRP