Crowd-sourcing Complacency?
posted on: Thursday, August 27, 2009
By Kevin Laskowski
In a previous post, I noted the announcement of a Philanthropy Policy Project and highlighted NCRP’s potential contribution to the discussion. Our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best could provide an excellent starting point for the Project’s discussions of social inclusion, diversity, accountability, transparency, ethics, effectiveness, and more.
At the same time, I hope this Policy Project is a sign of a philanthropy more willing to change the rules—and not only those governing itself. As NCRP prepares to release its third Grantmaking for Community Impact report, I’ve been thinking about philanthropic involvement in public policy more broadly. I’d like to see this Policy Project set its sights high so that we don’t forget what all this policy is really about.
Because I’ve heard this before. The banking and investment sector created a number of fascinating financial vehicles that few understood or questioned. We called it financial innovation. We moved money around, and we called it profitable and productive. It made some people very rich.
Now our sector is fantasizing about the possibilities presented by its own new toys. These instruments are designed to facilitate a certain type of philanthropic activity, activity that’s already possible in a lot of ways, but we’re assured the tools will make philanthropy easier and more effective. Now the Policy Project proposes to contemplate the regulatory environment that will best facilitate and incentivize these capital flows. What prevents all this from turning out the same way? Nearly three years ago, Business Week was discussing the securitization of microloans. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month on the coming “bubble” in microfinance.
For all our engagement in policy, we may end up simply moving money around. The process may get a new alphanumerical designation. Intermediaries will take their cut and call it “innovation,” but that’s not change anyone believes in anymore. If philanthropists wish to dip their toes in policy discussions with real impact, there are matters that could use the Policy Project’s attention, ingenuity, and collective resources more.
If the past year has taught us anything, it’s that philanthropy is not as independent a sector as it might think. The greatest threat to philanthropic assets is not inefficient capital flows, or those who might reinterpret donor intent, or those campaigning for greater diversity on foundation boards, or a regulation-happy Congress. None of those things ever wiped out a third of our foundations’ philanthropic wealth. That took an increasingly unstable, unequal, and unsustainable world economy. Philanthropy may not seek profits or votes, but it remains at the mercy of those who do.
What policy changes would create a foundation that was, in the words of the F. B. Heron Foundation, “more than a private investment company that uses some of its excess cash flow for charitable purposes?” What policy changes would transform our sector into something more than an emergent effect of forces beyond its control? What kind of tax policy, economic policy, industrial policy, environmental policy, or health-care policy would support the stability and growth of philanthropic capital? Because these policies affect our organizations and their missions by orders of magnitude that dwarf anything that typically occupies the Taste section of the Wall Street Journal.
And philanthropy as a field is woefully unwilling to engage in these debates, ultimately to its own detriment. Our sector’s ability to weather public scrutiny hinges on how it deals with the weightiest of public concerns. What if, instead of weathering economic ups-and-downs as the inert beneficiaries of capitalist largesse, foundations stepped up as a group to influence the economic decisions being made? To make sure that, whatever changes came, they were equitable and sustainable? The public would leap to its defense should an enterprising congressperson ever seek to capitalize on scandal. As it is, even the civically engaged can’t name a foundation on their first try. And the benefits that philanthropists do create often do not trickle down to communities that may need them the most, leaving us without perhaps our best champions—the public we serve.
Are we moving toward a more prosperous, more equitable, more sustainable state of affairs, or is our greatest genius in creating “new” philanthropic instruments? A Policy Project that confined itself to narrow sector issues and the endless contemplation and reproduction of the giving tools already in use would be a recipe for irrelevance.
Bernholz says, “This is a perfect opportunity to invite nonprofit and philanthropy professionals, social entrepreneurs, social capital market makers, data wonks, think tanks and others to reimagine the regulatory and policy structures that guide and inform philanthropy.” It’s a perfect time for us all—perhaps led by philanthropy—to reimagine the regulatory and policy structures that have guided and informed our public life in general. And, thankfully, we already have a word, a true giving vehicle, for that discussion: democracy.
“What policies or regulations would improve philanthropy?” It’s a great question, but the discussion shouldn’t stop there. What policies or regulations would improve our world? And what is our field’s role in championing those changes? Philanthropists have got to start going there.
That’s not a shot on the Policy Project, just a vote for pushing the conversation through the sterile, inward-looking ground of giving vehicles and incentives to the more fertile, productive frontier of what all this philanthropic policy is for. Philanthropies can convene panels and exert collective power at the drop of a hat when it comes to things like charitable incentives or combating perceived threats to those incentives. However, when it comes to the policies that will do more to determine our shared impact and common fate than any proposed tweak to the accounting rules, we don’t have much to say, at least not together.
“What would better philanthropy look like?” For starters, better philanthropies would band together for something more than the continued comfort of their individual assets. Here’s hoping the Philanthropy Policy Project goes there.
Tell us about your own hopes for the new Philanthropy Policy Project in comments.
Kevin Laskowski is Field Associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.Labels: Lucy Bernholz, philanthropy, Philanthropy 2173, Philanthropy at Its Best, Philanthropy Policy Project, Public Policy, socially-responsible investing
In a previous post, I noted the announcement of a Philanthropy Policy Project and highlighted NCRP’s potential contribution to the discussion. Our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best could provide an excellent starting point for the Project’s discussions of social inclusion, diversity, accountability, transparency, ethics, effectiveness, and more.
At the same time, I hope this Policy Project is a sign of a philanthropy more willing to change the rules—and not only those governing itself. As NCRP prepares to release its third Grantmaking for Community Impact report, I’ve been thinking about philanthropic involvement in public policy more broadly. I’d like to see this Policy Project set its sights high so that we don’t forget what all this policy is really about.
Because I’ve heard this before. The banking and investment sector created a number of fascinating financial vehicles that few understood or questioned. We called it financial innovation. We moved money around, and we called it profitable and productive. It made some people very rich.
Now our sector is fantasizing about the possibilities presented by its own new toys. These instruments are designed to facilitate a certain type of philanthropic activity, activity that’s already possible in a lot of ways, but we’re assured the tools will make philanthropy easier and more effective. Now the Policy Project proposes to contemplate the regulatory environment that will best facilitate and incentivize these capital flows. What prevents all this from turning out the same way? Nearly three years ago, Business Week was discussing the securitization of microloans. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month on the coming “bubble” in microfinance.
For all our engagement in policy, we may end up simply moving money around. The process may get a new alphanumerical designation. Intermediaries will take their cut and call it “innovation,” but that’s not change anyone believes in anymore. If philanthropists wish to dip their toes in policy discussions with real impact, there are matters that could use the Policy Project’s attention, ingenuity, and collective resources more.
If the past year has taught us anything, it’s that philanthropy is not as independent a sector as it might think. The greatest threat to philanthropic assets is not inefficient capital flows, or those who might reinterpret donor intent, or those campaigning for greater diversity on foundation boards, or a regulation-happy Congress. None of those things ever wiped out a third of our foundations’ philanthropic wealth. That took an increasingly unstable, unequal, and unsustainable world economy. Philanthropy may not seek profits or votes, but it remains at the mercy of those who do.
What policy changes would create a foundation that was, in the words of the F. B. Heron Foundation, “more than a private investment company that uses some of its excess cash flow for charitable purposes?” What policy changes would transform our sector into something more than an emergent effect of forces beyond its control? What kind of tax policy, economic policy, industrial policy, environmental policy, or health-care policy would support the stability and growth of philanthropic capital? Because these policies affect our organizations and their missions by orders of magnitude that dwarf anything that typically occupies the Taste section of the Wall Street Journal.
And philanthropy as a field is woefully unwilling to engage in these debates, ultimately to its own detriment. Our sector’s ability to weather public scrutiny hinges on how it deals with the weightiest of public concerns. What if, instead of weathering economic ups-and-downs as the inert beneficiaries of capitalist largesse, foundations stepped up as a group to influence the economic decisions being made? To make sure that, whatever changes came, they were equitable and sustainable? The public would leap to its defense should an enterprising congressperson ever seek to capitalize on scandal. As it is, even the civically engaged can’t name a foundation on their first try. And the benefits that philanthropists do create often do not trickle down to communities that may need them the most, leaving us without perhaps our best champions—the public we serve.
Are we moving toward a more prosperous, more equitable, more sustainable state of affairs, or is our greatest genius in creating “new” philanthropic instruments? A Policy Project that confined itself to narrow sector issues and the endless contemplation and reproduction of the giving tools already in use would be a recipe for irrelevance.
Bernholz says, “This is a perfect opportunity to invite nonprofit and philanthropy professionals, social entrepreneurs, social capital market makers, data wonks, think tanks and others to reimagine the regulatory and policy structures that guide and inform philanthropy.” It’s a perfect time for us all—perhaps led by philanthropy—to reimagine the regulatory and policy structures that have guided and informed our public life in general. And, thankfully, we already have a word, a true giving vehicle, for that discussion: democracy.
“What policies or regulations would improve philanthropy?” It’s a great question, but the discussion shouldn’t stop there. What policies or regulations would improve our world? And what is our field’s role in championing those changes? Philanthropists have got to start going there.
That’s not a shot on the Policy Project, just a vote for pushing the conversation through the sterile, inward-looking ground of giving vehicles and incentives to the more fertile, productive frontier of what all this philanthropic policy is for. Philanthropies can convene panels and exert collective power at the drop of a hat when it comes to things like charitable incentives or combating perceived threats to those incentives. However, when it comes to the policies that will do more to determine our shared impact and common fate than any proposed tweak to the accounting rules, we don’t have much to say, at least not together.
“What would better philanthropy look like?” For starters, better philanthropies would band together for something more than the continued comfort of their individual assets. Here’s hoping the Philanthropy Policy Project goes there.
Tell us about your own hopes for the new Philanthropy Policy Project in comments.
Kevin Laskowski is Field Associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: Lucy Bernholz, philanthropy, Philanthropy 2173, Philanthropy at Its Best, Philanthropy Policy Project, Public Policy, socially-responsible investing
posted by Kevin Laskowski at
3:15 PM
|
1 comments
links to this post
Planning for Progress?
A careful re-examination of the policies governing philanthropy could provide great insight into our sector and we could make great strides in encouraging effective philanthropy. In the past, NCRP has weighed in on the regulatory environment that would help improve the foundation world. NCRP applauded potential reform of the excise tax and directing that money to IRS oversight, which would remove the disincentive to higher payouts and improve enforcement.
More broadly, NCRP recently outlined what it thought exemplary philanthropy looked like in Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best (and it goes beyond a simple call for diversity):
- More grant dollars benefitting “marginalized communities,” including low-income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women and girls, people with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, senior citizens, immigrants and refugees, victims of crime and abuse, offenders and ex-offenders, single parents, and LGBTQ citizens
- More grant dollars for advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement
- More general operating support
- More multi-year support
- Grant requirements commensurate with the size of the grant
- Larger foundation boards that include diverse perspectives
- Ethical, transparent boards
- Payouts that go beyond the legal minimum
- Investing assets in accordance with your mission
Overall, we think, and our endorsers think, that the sector would be more effective, and the world would be better off if more grantmakers adopted policies along these lines. That’s not necessarily a matter for regulation. Many funders have seen the value in these practices without government intervention. The Philanthropy Policy Project would do well to tackle the issues of social inclusion and diversity, accountability, transparency, ethics, and more and to work toward compelling, ambitious benchmarks. The Criteria provide an excellent starting point.
But the conversation shouldn’t end there. In an upcoming post, I’ll discuss my concerns and hopes for the project.
Kevin Laskowski is Field Associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: Lucy Bernholz, philanthropy, Philanthropy 2173, Philanthropy at Its Best, Philanthropy Policy Project, Public Policy
posted by Kevin Laskowski at
2:58 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Evaluation: Capturing Knowledge and Impact in Complex Situations
posted on: Thursday, August 20, 2009
by Lisa Ranghelli
Lisbeth Schorr’s recent commentary, “To Judge What Will Best Help Society's Neediest, Let's Use a Broad Array of Evaluation Techniques,” in the Chronicle of Philanthropy made an important argument about the need to recognize and validate the knowledge and expertise of individuals and communities as they seek to solve complex social problems. Schorr cautioned against a reliance solely on “evidence-based” programs, since this gold standard of evaluation is almost impossible to attain – precisely because multi-faceted problems and solutions are hard to reduce to simple, linear cause-and-effect relationships.
Advocacy and community organizing tap the myriad skills and knowledge of a variety of stakeholders, who come together and pool what they know to craft solutions to community problems and create the political will to implement them. Sometimes these can be messy, nonlinear processes, yet their tangible and intangible impacts can be measured in a variety of ways. And the learning from those efforts—both successes and failures—informs future change strategies.
As foundation leaders, academics and practitioners seek ever more ways to measure and assess impact, it will be important to not separate the people on the ground and their knowledge from the seemingly neutral tools of evaluation. FSG Social Impact Advisors’ comprehensive study, “Breakthroughs and Shared Measurement of Social Impact,” noted that new shared systems “offer an important complement to more rigorous evaluation studies by promoting ongoing learning in timely and cost-effective ways.”
Key elements of these measurement systems include: voluntary participation by the organizations providing data; independence from funders in developing and managing the system; and, in more advanced systems, an opportunity for participants to get together and talk about the results, share learning, and improve coordination. These participatory tracking processes allow everyone involved in a complex set of activities to benefit from the information collected. These approaches can help shift focus from unrealistic attempts to learn whether a grant to one organization to achieve a specific outcome was effective, toward less fragmented, more holistic examinations of collective impact. Perhaps convening participants is as important as data collection, so that their “on the ground” knowledge can inform data analysis and future planning based on what the data reveals.
A quick review of the publicly-available approaches highlighted in the report indicates that only a few are attempting to capture data related to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement. The Center for What Works/Urban Institute Indicators Project stands out for having a set of outcomes and indicators for both advocacy and organizing.
Would more attention to advocacy and organizing in shared measurement systems–and the associated collective learning that participants undertake—be helpful to advocates and organizers? Would these tools give more funders confidence to provide grants for these strategies?
Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina.Labels: advocacy, evaluation, Foundations supporting advocacy and organizing, Measuring Impact, Organizing and Civic Engagement, Public Policy
Lisbeth Schorr’s recent commentary, “To Judge What Will Best Help Society's Neediest, Let's Use a Broad Array of Evaluation Techniques,” in the Chronicle of Philanthropy made an important argument about the need to recognize and validate the knowledge and expertise of individuals and communities as they seek to solve complex social problems. Schorr cautioned against a reliance solely on “evidence-based” programs, since this gold standard of evaluation is almost impossible to attain – precisely because multi-faceted problems and solutions are hard to reduce to simple, linear cause-and-effect relationships.
Advocacy and community organizing tap the myriad skills and knowledge of a variety of stakeholders, who come together and pool what they know to craft solutions to community problems and create the political will to implement them. Sometimes these can be messy, nonlinear processes, yet their tangible and intangible impacts can be measured in a variety of ways. And the learning from those efforts—both successes and failures—informs future change strategies.
As foundation leaders, academics and practitioners seek ever more ways to measure and assess impact, it will be important to not separate the people on the ground and their knowledge from the seemingly neutral tools of evaluation. FSG Social Impact Advisors’ comprehensive study, “Breakthroughs and Shared Measurement of Social Impact,” noted that new shared systems “offer an important complement to more rigorous evaluation studies by promoting ongoing learning in timely and cost-effective ways.”
Key elements of these measurement systems include: voluntary participation by the organizations providing data; independence from funders in developing and managing the system; and, in more advanced systems, an opportunity for participants to get together and talk about the results, share learning, and improve coordination. These participatory tracking processes allow everyone involved in a complex set of activities to benefit from the information collected. These approaches can help shift focus from unrealistic attempts to learn whether a grant to one organization to achieve a specific outcome was effective, toward less fragmented, more holistic examinations of collective impact. Perhaps convening participants is as important as data collection, so that their “on the ground” knowledge can inform data analysis and future planning based on what the data reveals.
A quick review of the publicly-available approaches highlighted in the report indicates that only a few are attempting to capture data related to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement. The Center for What Works/Urban Institute Indicators Project stands out for having a set of outcomes and indicators for both advocacy and organizing.
Would more attention to advocacy and organizing in shared measurement systems–and the associated collective learning that participants undertake—be helpful to advocates and organizers? Would these tools give more funders confidence to provide grants for these strategies?
Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina.
Labels: advocacy, evaluation, Foundations supporting advocacy and organizing, Measuring Impact, Organizing and Civic Engagement, Public Policy
posted by Lisa Ranghelli at
4:43 PM
|
1 comments
links to this post
Foundations Can Leverage “Dollars, Knowledge, and Networks” to Improve Policies
posted on: Monday, April 27, 2009
by Lisa Ranghelli
The Foundation Center’s new publication, Foundations and Public Policy: Leveraging Philanthropic Dollars, Knowledge, and Networks for Greater Impact (edited by James M. Ferris, Director of the Center on Philanthropy & Public Policy), is a welcome addition to the growing list of resources available to help grantmakers decide whether and how to add the tool of policy engagement to enhance their effectiveness and advance their missions.
Ferris makes two important points in his foreword to the book:
1) “Public policy engagement is a natural extension of foundation efforts to address public problems.”
And indeed, what problems in our society are not public in some sense? Especially in the current economic crisis, in which everything from the arts to zoos is at risk of being dismantled, not to mention the dire situation facing nonprofits that are working to meet the rising demand for basic services (food, shelter) with less capacity and resources. Public policy is playing an important role in addressing these immediate challenges, such as economic stimulus funds. And public policy will play a critical role in the longer term (one hopes) to help our country avoid another economic catastrophe by shoring up the financial regulatory structures. This recession reminds us all that even markets and the private sector are indeed matters of public policy, or at least they should be.
2) “Foundation involvement in public policy is not new.”
As Chapter 3 of the book points out, philanthropists have been influencing policy practically since the nation was founded. While the Tax Reform Act of 1969 tightened the regulatory framework governing foundations, “The federal tax law provides considerable latitude for private foundations to participate in the formation of public policy” (page 79). Chapter 4 concisely describes this latitude within the current legal framework. Despite philanthropy’s history of policy engagement and today’s easy access to good legal information, somehow many foundation leaders continue to believe mistakenly that they must avoid engaging directly in policy or funding nonprofits that do.
At last year’s Council on Foundations summit, I attended a session on rural philanthropy. As I applauded one rural funder’s comment about the importance of advocacy, the foundation leader sitting next to me said, “Why are you applauding illegal behavior?” Lawyers who advise grantmakers to err on the side of caution are doing them a disservice by discouraging perfectly legal strategies that can help funders make a big difference on the issues they care about.
In addition to offering a historical perspective on philanthropic policy engagement, the book also provides present-day case studies of funder engagement in four policy areas: health, the environment, child care and education. Health is a major concern for institutional philanthropy: according to Chapter 6, based on a sample of 1,200 of the largest foundations, nine in ten funders award grants in this field (page 121). Yet, the health care system suffers from many challenges that seemingly demand a policy response. Can all these scattered grants address the high rates of uninsured and high costs of care that are bankrupting thousands of Americans? The chapter’s authors suggest that bold coordinated action at all levels of policymaking is needed by philanthropy to make a difference.
While there has been much discussion lately about the supremacy of “donor intent,” which supposedly puts constraints on what a foundation can do, this chapter asserts quite the opposite: “Perhaps the most critical asset of foundations is their nearly complete freedom to select the issues they wish to address and the means of addressing them. … Unlike government officials who must confront a wide range of issues and typically take a conservative posture, foundations can focus quite narrowly on a problem and inquire into radical solutions without direct constraints” (page 121). Even the Helmsley estate has exercised discretion to support medical research and human services, rather than giving all of its $137 million of grant funds to just benefit animal welfare.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is one of a dozen foundations featured in Chapter 6. Although RWJF is a national foundation, the book praises RWJF for its willingness to invest in policy networks at the local and state levels, where the potential to achieve policy change is greater than at the federal level. NCRP’s research on the impacts of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement has turned up a great example of what this approach looks like on the ground—and the impact it can achieve.
On May 11, NCRP will release its second report in a series, Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: The Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina. The first report focused on New Mexico. The North Carolina report features the advocacy and organizing impacts of 13 local and state organizations. One of these is Senior PharmAssist, which helps senior citizens obtain affordable medications and manage those medications. Advocacy has become a central part of the organization’s mission, especially since Medicare Part D was implemented. According to Senior PharmAssist’s executive director, Gina Upchurch, a leadership grant from RWJF provided the springboard to coordinated action. Upchurch used the grant to convene a broad range of stakeholders in 2006 to discuss Medicare reform and how it was affecting seniors’ access to medications in North Carolina. The stakeholders decided to create Advocates for a North Carolina Prescription Drug Assistance Program. To date the coalition has successfully advocated for:
- Creation of NCRx, which provides state funding of $6 million for Medicare D monthly premium assistance to more than 5,000 lower-income seniors.
- Creation of ChecKmeds, a pharmaceutical reimbursement program for medication therapy management services that has benefited more than 17,000 seniors, with state funding of $2 million.
- State appropriation of $250,000 for the Seniors’ Health Insurance Information Program (SHIIP) community-based outreach grants to connect 15,000 eligible seniors to services such as NCRx and Medicare D subsidies.
The advocates continue to push for expansion of NCRx to cover low-wealth disabled residents and to raise the eligibility level above 175 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Upchurch neatly summarized the value of stakeholders coming together: “As a coalition we have power. Elected officials can’t easily dismiss or try to heavily influence the coalition’s focus – because we’re all in this together and have a process for making decisions.”
RWJF has certainly seen some bang for its buck with its modest investment in Senior PharmAssist. To learn about other impressive foundation-funded nonprofit advocacy and organizing impacts in North Carolina, look for the report on May 11th – when a copy can be downloaded for free at http://www.ncrp.org/. The policy impacts in the report were achieved by nonprofits of all sizes and collectively funded by local, state and national grantmakers. Even small, local foundations can affect policy in their community by leveraging their “dollars, knowledge, and networks.”
Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). She is the author of the report Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in New Mexico.
Labels: advocacy, Grantmaking for Community Impact Project, Organizing and Civic Engagement, policy engagement, Public Policy
by Lisa Ranghelli
The Foundation Center’s new publication, Foundations and Public Policy: Leveraging Philanthropic Dollars, Knowledge, and Networks for Greater Impact (edited by James M. Ferris, Director of the Center on Philanthropy & Public Policy), is a welcome addition to the growing list of resources available to help grantmakers decide whether and how to add the tool of policy engagement to enhance their effectiveness and advance their missions.
Ferris makes two important points in his foreword to the book:
1) “Public policy engagement is a natural extension of foundation efforts to address public problems.”
And indeed, what problems in our society are not public in some sense? Especially in the current economic crisis, in which everything from the arts to zoos is at risk of being dismantled, not to mention the dire situation facing nonprofits that are working to meet the rising demand for basic services (food, shelter) with less capacity and resources. Public policy is playing an important role in addressing these immediate challenges, such as economic stimulus funds. And public policy will play a critical role in the longer term (one hopes) to help our country avoid another economic catastrophe by shoring up the financial regulatory structures. This recession reminds us all that even markets and the private sector are indeed matters of public policy, or at least they should be.
2) “Foundation involvement in public policy is not new.”
As Chapter 3 of the book points out, philanthropists have been influencing policy practically since the nation was founded. While the Tax Reform Act of 1969 tightened the regulatory framework governing foundations, “The federal tax law provides considerable latitude for private foundations to participate in the formation of public policy” (page 79). Chapter 4 concisely describes this latitude within the current legal framework. Despite philanthropy’s history of policy engagement and today’s easy access to good legal information, somehow many foundation leaders continue to believe mistakenly that they must avoid engaging directly in policy or funding nonprofits that do.
At last year’s Council on Foundations summit, I attended a session on rural philanthropy. As I applauded one rural funder’s comment about the importance of advocacy, the foundation leader sitting next to me said, “Why are you applauding illegal behavior?” Lawyers who advise grantmakers to err on the side of caution are doing them a disservice by discouraging perfectly legal strategies that can help funders make a big difference on the issues they care about.
In addition to offering a historical perspective on philanthropic policy engagement, the book also provides present-day case studies of funder engagement in four policy areas: health, the environment, child care and education. Health is a major concern for institutional philanthropy: according to Chapter 6, based on a sample of 1,200 of the largest foundations, nine in ten funders award grants in this field (page 121). Yet, the health care system suffers from many challenges that seemingly demand a policy response. Can all these scattered grants address the high rates of uninsured and high costs of care that are bankrupting thousands of Americans? The chapter’s authors suggest that bold coordinated action at all levels of policymaking is needed by philanthropy to make a difference.
While there has been much discussion lately about the supremacy of “donor intent,” which supposedly puts constraints on what a foundation can do, this chapter asserts quite the opposite: “Perhaps the most critical asset of foundations is their nearly complete freedom to select the issues they wish to address and the means of addressing them. … Unlike government officials who must confront a wide range of issues and typically take a conservative posture, foundations can focus quite narrowly on a problem and inquire into radical solutions without direct constraints” (page 121). Even the Helmsley estate has exercised discretion to support medical research and human services, rather than giving all of its $137 million of grant funds to just benefit animal welfare.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is one of a dozen foundations featured in Chapter 6. Although RWJF is a national foundation, the book praises RWJF for its willingness to invest in policy networks at the local and state levels, where the potential to achieve policy change is greater than at the federal level. NCRP’s research on the impacts of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement has turned up a great example of what this approach looks like on the ground—and the impact it can achieve.
On May 11, NCRP will release its second report in a series, Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: The Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina. The first report focused on New Mexico. The North Carolina report features the advocacy and organizing impacts of 13 local and state organizations. One of these is Senior PharmAssist, which helps senior citizens obtain affordable medications and manage those medications. Advocacy has become a central part of the organization’s mission, especially since Medicare Part D was implemented. According to Senior PharmAssist’s executive director, Gina Upchurch, a leadership grant from RWJF provided the springboard to coordinated action. Upchurch used the grant to convene a broad range of stakeholders in 2006 to discuss Medicare reform and how it was affecting seniors’ access to medications in North Carolina. The stakeholders decided to create Advocates for a North Carolina Prescription Drug Assistance Program. To date the coalition has successfully advocated for:
- Creation of NCRx, which provides state funding of $6 million for Medicare D monthly premium assistance to more than 5,000 lower-income seniors.
- Creation of ChecKmeds, a pharmaceutical reimbursement program for medication therapy management services that has benefited more than 17,000 seniors, with state funding of $2 million.
- State appropriation of $250,000 for the Seniors’ Health Insurance Information Program (SHIIP) community-based outreach grants to connect 15,000 eligible seniors to services such as NCRx and Medicare D subsidies.
The advocates continue to push for expansion of NCRx to cover low-wealth disabled residents and to raise the eligibility level above 175 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Upchurch neatly summarized the value of stakeholders coming together: “As a coalition we have power. Elected officials can’t easily dismiss or try to heavily influence the coalition’s focus – because we’re all in this together and have a process for making decisions.”
RWJF has certainly seen some bang for its buck with its modest investment in Senior PharmAssist. To learn about other impressive foundation-funded nonprofit advocacy and organizing impacts in North Carolina, look for the report on May 11th – when a copy can be downloaded for free at http://www.ncrp.org/. The policy impacts in the report were achieved by nonprofits of all sizes and collectively funded by local, state and national grantmakers. Even small, local foundations can affect policy in their community by leveraging their “dollars, knowledge, and networks.”
Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). She is the author of the report Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in New Mexico.
Labels: advocacy, Grantmaking for Community Impact Project, Organizing and Civic Engagement, policy engagement, Public Policy
posted by NCRP at
9:48 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
