posted on: Thursday, March 18, 2010

By: Christine Reeves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Kevin Laskowski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on: Wednesday, March 17, 2010

By Julia Craig

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



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

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

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

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

posted on: Thursday, February 25, 2010

by Julia Craig

An organizer aboard a Los Angeles bus.

Photo courtesy of Labor/Community Strategy Center Bus Riders Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on: Thursday, January 21, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on: Thursday, December 03, 2009

By Kevin Laskowski

More than forty D.C.-area leaders in philanthropy gathered Tuesday to discuss the new book Change Philanthropy: Candid Stories of Foundations Maximizing Results Through Social Justice (Jossey-Bass, 2009). Authored by Alicia Korten Epstein, the book features case studies of foundations and organizations working successfully for change, bringing to life “the real challenges and exhilarations of grantmaking that seeks to address critical social issues of our day.”

Deepak Bhargava, Executive Director of the Center for Community Change (CCC), opened the event to explain why the Center sought to publish the book.

“Real change always comes from expanded democracy,” he said. “Now what is the role of philanthropy in this? The challenge for us is to move beyond charity and give life to democracy.”

He noted the mounting challenges before the sector, including economic instability and inequality and climate change, joking, “Not to put too much pressure on you, but the fate of our society and planet hang in the balance.”

Marjorie Fine, Director of CCC’s Linchpin Campaign and project director for Change Philanthropy, moderated a panel discussion with Korten and representatives from two of the book’s featured philanthropies: Dave Beckwith, Executive Director of the Needmor Fund, and Christine Doby, Program Officer at the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Korten outlined “Six Principles of High Impact Giving,” lessons learned from the more than 200 interviews that resulted in the book:

1. Develop a theory of change.
2. Match your goals to your resources.
3. Use all your resources.
4. Know your potential grantees.
5. Amplify grantee voices.
6. Evaluate work.

She noted how these might be principles for any grantmaker looking to be more effective. However, she said, the case studies in the book featured foundations who brought an additional “equity lens” to their work.

Beckwith related how such a lens lead the Stranahan family, the family behind the Needmor Fund, to fund community organizing and to invest in a socially responsible way.

“I’m from the Needmor Fund and we fund community organizing,” Beckwith said, tracing the development of Needmor’s grantmaking from its beginnings in 1956 through its “two nuns and a fax machine” phase to its current support of local community organizing groups.

“We’d give grants to organizations, and they were basically two nuns and a fax machine,” he said. “We’d give them a grant to raise hell.”

Several events in the 1980s pushed the Stranahans to consider the relationships—and contradictions—between their values, their investments, and their philanthropy. In one instance, The Champion Spark Plug Company, founded by the family, was building a factory in apartheid South Africa, and a shareholder resolution had been introduced to have Champion adopt the Sullivan Principles. The question was raised: how would the foundation vote its shares in the family business?

“What are our responsibilities as owners? How do we apply our values to all of our dollars?” Beckwith asked, saying that foundations need not give up their values or their expectation of return in the realm of investments. “Ninety percent of our assets are screened.”

He pointed grantmakers toward community development financial institutions (CDFIs) as an easy entry point into the world of mission-related and socially responsible investing.

Foundations carry a portion of their assets in cash for a number of reasons, Beckwith explained. Foundations can easily purchase insured certificates of deposit from CDFIs and not only secure a return but do good in communities as well.

Doby noted that her foundation’s practices were rooted in the founder’s vision of community and democracy.

“For Mott, democracy worked best when individuals were related to the community and its institutions, and when institutions were related to individuals,” Doby said.

She explained that community organizing becomes important because policymakers often already know what ought to be done but are “held captive” by other interests.

“The point is to build community voices so that policymakers have the political cover to do the right thing,” she said.

Tuesday’s event was sponsored by the Center for Community Change, Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, the Greater Washington Social Justice Forum, and the Hill-Snowdon Foundation.

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

posted on: Thursday, August 20, 2009

by Lisa Ranghelli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on: Thursday, May 14, 2009

by Lisa Ranghelli

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

- Institute for Southern Studies

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

- National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on: Monday, 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.