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: Friday, December 18, 2009

By Julia Craig

The New York Times recently ran a story chronicling the disproportionate effects of the recession on elderly Americans living in rural areas. Citing a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the article documents the ways in which state budget woes affect the elderly in rural communities, often out of sight of the general population. According to the report, 24 states have made budget cuts to services for the elderly this year, and more are expected in the future.

In addition to difficulty accessing social services, rural elderly have seen their churches close over the years. Many of the people featured in the story are widows or widowers and their children no longer live in the area. The accompanying slideshow brings the numbers to life, portraying the difficulties of growing older in communities with little support infrastructure.

Rural communities are aging as young people leave for education and work opportunities elsewhere; the decline of farming and manufacturing has led younger residents to migrate to more urban areas. This means the new generation is not available to care for aging family members, which used to be a mainstay in agrarian life.

What does this mean for philanthropy?

According to a research we conducted for Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best released in March this year, over a three-year period, just 1.5 percent of grant dollars could be classified as intended to benefit what the Foundation Center classifies as the “aging/elderly/senior citizens.”

And in our 2007 report Rural Philanthropy, NCRP found that stereotypes of life in rural America deterred some funders from investing there. Further, rural nonprofits expressed frustration at feeling cut off from access to foundation resources, sometimes simply by virtue of geography. Attracting and retaining staff is particularly difficult with limited funds.

It seems that the odds are stacked up against the elderly living in rural America. But philanthropy can do something. Here are some ideas:

• Identifying infrastructure gaps. Help sustain organizations that will support and promote rural nonprofit community interests, including those serving the elderly. A strong nonprofit infrastructure is part of the social fabric of American communities.
• Monitor trends. Foundations can’t replace the role of public investments in services for vulnerable communities, but by monitoring trends, philanthropy can identify gaps in government support and target those needs.
• Change perceptions. Funders can support organizations that conduct and disseminate research and other information on rural issues so that grantmaking priorities and public policy reflects more accurately the realities faced by rural Americans.

What do you think? Are there other ways that foundations and other grantmakers can help rural Americans, including the elderly? Share your thoughts in comments!

Image: dan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

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

posted on: Tuesday, November 17, 2009

By Robert Espinoza

At Funders for LGBTQ Issues, a national philanthropic group that studies US foundation giving to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) communities, a flash bulb in our annual research shed light on a lingering disparity.

In 2007, our research tracked 71 foundations in the US that gave roughly $3.6 million to organizations explicitly serving LGBTQ people of color. Considering that the broader philanthropic portrait contains more than 72,000 foundations giving nearly $43 billion, support for LGBTQ people of color revealed itself as a blip, an almost invisible pixel.

Sociology teaches us that societal barriers play out through our economy, public and institutional policies, mass media and everyday interactions. They rear their heads as bigotry, stereotypes and unfair representations. They persist from generation to generation, seemingly intractable and often coded in values of individualism. “If the lone, talented public figure can make it,”—goes the myth of meritocracy—“why can’t everyone?”

And yet for decades, studies have emphasized how deeply embedded discrimination, produced across generations, has critically impacted the quality of life and self-advancement of communities of color—despite the same level of individual effort. For LGBTQ people of color, these conditions are exacerbated by attitudes and structures that treat people differently based on their sexualities and their gender identities and expressions.

As evidence, a growing body of research continues to demonstrate this "heightened vulnerability" among LGBTQ people of color—to health risks, verbal and physical violence, and institutional discrimination, among other areas. LGBTQ people of color also face the disregard of institutions; they are relatively unexplored as research topics and rarely considered as constituencies affected by public policies or in need of culturally and linguistically sensitive services.

So what happens when organizations that were set up to reverse these conditions receive little support from philanthropic sources? What becomes of a healthy civil society when its most vulnerable populations remain impoverished? Is this how philanthropy upholds its purpose?

A few weeks ago, as part of our multi-year Racial Equity Campaign to raise philanthropic support for LGBTQ communities of color, Funders for LGBTQ Issues released a landmark web site that begins portraying the realities of these diverse communities. This toolkit aims to reach grantmakers of all types, providing multiple entry points for foundations with unique interests and approaches.

The Racial Equity Online Toolkit compiles original grantmaking tools, publications and commentaries from foundation and nonprofit leaders around the country. It reminds us that inequality has a geographic footprint, that hardship changes shape across neighborhoods, towns, cities and regions. Funders in any locality can be change agents.

The stories featured in this toolkit also demonstrate the potential of working across difference, understanding the root causes of inequality and forging solutions that originate in the communities where hardship is most deeply felt. It’s a flash bulb that illuminates the nature of inequality, as well as some avenues for addressing it.

More importantly, it’s a flash bulb for funders who crave focus, an additional lens, a more complete picture.

Please visit the Racial Equity Online Toolkit at http://www.lgbtracialequity.org/.

Robert Espinoza is the director of research and communications at Funders for LGBTQ Issues.

posted on: Thursday, July 16, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

The Foundation Center released yesterday a new report about social justice grantmaking. The press release announcing the findings in Social Justice Grantmaking II claims that there is “renewed interest” from grantmakers in supporting social justice. As a percentage of total grantmaking, giving for social justice climbed from 11 percent in 2002 to 12 percent in 2006.

You can download for free a 12-page summary of the report, or order a hard copy of the full report for $40. I was privileged to serve on the advisory committee for this project, and I recommend ordering a copy of the full report if you want to get the detailed insights provided by extensive data analysis and interview findings.

What has been your experience? Are funders more willing to support social justice causes (such as efforts on anti-poverty, environmental justice, improving access to health care and others) now than they were a few years ago? What do you think needs to happen to help speed up the growth in social justice funding? In what year do you think we’ll reach the point where 25 percent or more of all foundation grant dollars are for social justice causes?

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

posted on: Tuesday, July 07, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

David Freddoso, a political reporter for the National Review and its online affiliate, which describes itself as “America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion,” recently published two commentaries in the Washington Examiner attacking NCRP and our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. In the first commentary, he claims that Criteria is part of a “money grab” by liberal nonprofits. In his second piece, he accuses NCRP of manipulating foundation data and claims that there is no “crisis in philanthropy.”

What’s particularly interesting about both pieces is how Freddoso summarily dismisses the need for change in the current philanthropic sector by labeling efforts to address shortcomings as a leftist conspiracy. His readers are made to believe that there’s no room for improvement in how our nation’s foundations operate. Unfortunately, Freddoso got it all wrong.

First, Freddoso misrepresents NCRP’s motives for publishing Criteria. Both columns assert that NCRP seeks to regulate philanthropy on these issues and that our recommendations are about mandates. This is simply not true, and I have stated as much on more than a dozen occasions since the release of the publication this past March. The most thorough exploration of this can be found in the transcript of a debate with representatives from the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of conservative foundations, held on May 28th at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.

NCRP’s goal in publishing Criteria was to generate robust discussion within the field about issues we feel are critically important. That has been happening, and we’re pleased. If we wanted legislation, we would have drafted legislation.

I gave a speech at the Philanthropy Roundtable’s annual conference last year where I called for increased mandated disclosure for foundations. Near the end of my remarks, I shared my thoughts about having Congress tell foundations where to put their money:

“I don’t believe that politicians should decide where foundation dollars go any more than I believe the government should mandate how much protein should be in a frozen pizza. The dangers of that kind of political meddling are too great, and the independence of foundations should be protected. That independence, after all, is what allows foundations to contribute most meaningfully to a vibrant democracy.”

Second, Freddoso argues that NCRP’s data are flawed. He claims that because many grants are coded without any specific intended beneficiaries, NCRP has understated the actual benefits from philanthropy to underserved groups. There is some truth to this argument, and we acknowledged as much in Criteria; grants that are intended to benefit all of society also benefit marginalized populations to some degree.

But in the chapter on Values, we make a case for foundations to pursue “targeted universalism” with their limited dollars. We argue that investments strategically targeted to benefit the most marginalized in society have benefits for those groups and for society as a whole. And we also point out that programs intended to benefit all of society often are not particularly effective at reaching the most vulnerable. (Read previous blog posts on targeted universalism and marginalized communities.)

Liberals don’t have a monopoly on the concept of targeted universalism. The idea is credited to the liberal scholar john a. powell, who runs the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. But conservative scholar Chester E. Finn, Jr., a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and chairman of Hoover’s Task Force on K–12 Education, also advocated this approach in a recent commentary in the Washington Post. In that piece, Finn argues against universal preschool, saying that dollars can be more efficiently and effectively deployed if targeted for the specific benefit of those children who are most at risk.

Additionally, there clearly is a need for improving the way foundations report on the beneficiaries of their grantmaking, and how these are coded by the Foundation Center. Larry McGill, the Foundation Center’s vice president for research, wrote a thoughtful post on this very issue on the blog PhilanTopic as he talked about the numbers we used in Criteria and the results of a new report by The Philanthropic Collaborative. (We also explored the seeming inconsistency in a recent blog post by Julia Craig.)

Freddoso is not the first to use such a divisive tactic to discredit the recommendations in Criteria. (Read Philanthropy’s Real Enemy?) Thankfully, not all “conservative” thinkers share his feelings about the value of our contribution to the field. William Schambra, director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at Hudson Institute, made the following remarks recently:

“For all the talk in recent years about philanthropy’s need for transparency and accountability, our foundations by and large continue to discuss their work in a language that is obscurantist, pretentious, and faddish. They seldom if ever lift their sights from the operational details of their work to the larger ends that philanthropy should serve in a democratic republic. If nothing else, the NCRP’s report presents a well-articulated argument about philanthropy’s appropriate ends as well as means. It has therefore provoked a conversation that will in fact promote accountability and transparency in the only way that can ever be accomplished in a free democracy, namely through vigorous debate about our moral purposes in language that we can all understand.”

One final observation: it’s not uncommon for some folks to get NCRP’s name wrong; it is a mouthful after all. But surprisingly, Freddoso and the Washington Examiner butchered our name in both commentaries. As a news junkie, I value accuracy and fairness in the writing of the journalists and news outlets I follow.

Fortunately, efforts by the likes of Freddoso who think that philanthropy is entirely as it should be do not ring true to most thoughtful observers. A large group of experts and practitioners in the charitable sector—liberals and conservatives—believe that there is an urgent need for change in how philanthropy is practiced.

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

posted on: Friday, June 26, 2009

By Julia Craig

A new report from The Philanthropy Collaborative, a Washington-based coalition of nonprofit and local government officials, estimates that 68 percent of health-related grant dollars from 2005 to 2007 was designated for “minorities, the economically disadvantaged, and other underserved groups.” This translates into $5.5 billion of institutional grantmaking funds over the three year period. The report’s author, Phillip L. Swagel, PhD, wrote: “One can only conclude from these findings that foundations have played the role expected of them in supporting those in our society who need the most help – and have done so in a financially significant way.”

Broad Benefits: Health-Related Giving by Private and Community Foundations examined both Foundation Center data on intended beneficiaries for health-related grantmaking and conducted additional analysis of a sample of 200 grants that were coded as health-related but not as intended to benefit marginalized groups.* The report found that 31.4 percent of grant dollars could be explicitly categorized as benefitting those with the least wealth and opportunity. Further, 53.4 percent of the foundation dollars from the additional 200 grants analyzed counted as benefiting such groups. Swagel extrapolated this to conclude that 53.4 percent of all grants not designated for marginalized communities could in fact be categorized as such. (68.6 percent of total health-related grant dollars). Hence, the 68 percent figure: 31.4 + (0.534 x 68.6).

The difficulty of relying on data from the Foundation Center’s sample and the (often inconsistent) 990PF form is one that researchers in the philanthropic sector know well. As Swagel showed, it is possible that some grants not previously marked as benefitting specific populations are in fact intended as such. By focusing on health-related grants – the largest category of giving according to the report – Swagel was able to dig deeper into the data. He also discussed the challenge of coding, even within his own sample of 200 unspecified grants.

Swagel explained his process using the example of a $74,929 grant from the Cleveland Foundation to Catholic Community Care. While the grant was initially categorized as benefiting the elderly, Swagel determined that based on Catholic Community Care’s mission and the demographics of the Cleveland area population, 40.5 percent of the grant could be designated as benefiting minorities and the economically disadvantaged. This example further highlights the difficulty of determining what “counts” when it comes to grantmaking for marginalized communities. An illustrative estimate seems to be the best possible outcome rather than a definitive number.

If you are familiar with NCRP’s work, you are probably asking yourself: If Swagel found that over 2/3 of health-related grant dollars are intended to benefit marginalized groups, why did NCRP write in Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best that just one in three grant dollars (or 33 percent) across all categories can be designated as such? Swagel posited the 2/3 figure only after conducting additional research on his 200 grant sample; the Foundation Center data initially categorized 31.4 percent of health-related grant dollars as benefiting underserved populations.

Swagel concluded that his findings highlight the importance of his grant-by-grant analysis. I agree: the deeper the researcher is able to dig to find answers, the better. However, the results remain illustrative, particularly given the subjectivity of the process of evaluating the additional grants. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion in the field about who benefits from philanthropy, why this is a crucial question for grantmakers to be asking themselves, the challenges of measuring intended beneficiaries and the need to improve reporting and data gathering.

Previous posts by Niki Jagpal, Kevin Laskowski, and me have discussed the importance of “targeted universalism” – essentially the reason why understanding who benefits from philanthropy matters. Targeted universalism holds that in order for society as a whole to improve, there must be a specific focus on those with the least wealth and opportunity. This is in contrast to a “trickle-down” approach, or one that assumes benefits will reach those at the bottom if applied to the general public. Further, by addressing the needs of those with the least wealth and opportunity, targeted universalism provides benefits to all people. Funders should ensure their grants are reaching those on the margins; in Criteria we call for 50 percent of grant dollars to be designated this way.


*The TPC report cites 11 constituencies per available Foundation Center data: racial and ethnic minorities; the economically disadvantaged; people with disabilities; victims of crime or abuse; people with terminal illness; people with AIDS; immigrants and refugees; lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered individuals; ex-offenders and current offenders; substance abusers and; single parents. NCRP utilized nearly identical categories in its analysis for Criteria.

posted on: Wednesday, June 24, 2009

by Niki Jagpal

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) dubbed this year’s International Refugee Day “Real People, Real Needs” to highlight the negative consequences of threatened cutbacks in foreign aid on the 42 million displaced persons around the globe. The UNHCR noted that “a shortage or lack of the essentials of life—clean water, food, sanitation, shelter, health care and protection from violence and abuse—means that every day can be a struggle just to survive.”

According to a comprehensive assessment of refugees and other marginalized groups that UNHCR serves, 30 percent of this group’s basic needs, a third of them in services, remained unmet. “Improvements in nutrition and water supplies, access to primary health care, strengthened child protection programmes, better protection for women from sexual violence and abuse, and improvements in living conditions and sanitation facilities are just some of the needs that are not being met worldwide.”

Queen Noor of Jordan explained in an op-ed on Huffington Post the importance of identifying explicitly the positive outcomes of intentionally targeting refugees and displaced persons in grantmaking, noting the vast number of such people in her country because of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East for the last 35 years. She stated:

“Yet, I have also seen that refugees are a tremendous inspiration. Supporting these vulnerable people not only reduces their suffering, but also brings peace to troubled regions. Despite the pain and trauma they have experienced, refugees and displaced people hold on to the hope that they can someday return home and rebuild their lives. Like all of us, they want to be able to contribute to society, earn incomes, and send their children to school. An investment in refugees is an investment in whole communities and a clear way to promote peace and prosperity.”

Noor’s statement speaks directly to the high “return on investment” of using an approach called “targeted universalism,” a means for broad society-wide advancement by accounting for the needs of those groups most disadvantaged by our institutions and structures and discussed in length in Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best (pdf). Refugees/immigrants were one of the 11 special communities we included in defining broadly “marginalized groups” based on Foundation Center data, where giving intended to benefit both groups is counted under one category. This suggests that giving explicitly to improve refugees’ life conditions could be lower of if the two groups were separated out.

Still, our analysis of disaggregated data on philanthropy intended to benefit these two groups in the years before the global economic crisis set in fully found disappointingly low-levels of giving. The range of the top five funders for this special population group showed great variation, 12.9-40.3 percent (Please see p. 114 of the Criteria Data Appendix [pdf]).

Our analysis is especially disturbing given the dire need, the unbelievable number of displaced persons around the world, and the resounding impact on every aspect of life in the developing world.

The 2007 growth rates among countries in the African continent were finally showing signs of improvements after years of stagnation. If foreign aid is indeed scaled back, economic gains will more than likely revert to the pre-2007 levels, undoing the positive impact of foreign direct investments and aid in the continent (please see the World Bank’s 2007 Africa development indicators for additional information and links to various other country statistics).

The UNHCR called on the global community to do more for refugees this year, reminding us that “basic needs that must be met so they have a chance to rebuild their lives.”

The important questions for international donors are: Will this crisis lead more donors committed to helping displaced persons to consider “targeted universalism” as a way to augment the impact of their contributions? Do you think that we in the U.S. all have a stake on peace and protection of human rights in Sudan, Rwanda and other places in the world?

What do you think? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Niki Jagpal is research & policy director at NCRP, and primary author of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact.

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: Tuesday, May 26, 2009

by Julia Craig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on: Friday, May 22, 2009

By Lisa Ranghelli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on: Friday, April 03, 2009

by Niki Jagpal

Yesterday marked the second annual World Autism Awareness Day (WAAD), adopted via resolution by the UN General Assembly with support from all member states on the 18th of December, 2007. As noted on the WAAD website:

This UN resolution is one of only three official disease-specific United Nations Days and will bring the world's attention to autism, a pervasive disorder that affects tens of millions. The World Autism Awareness Day resolution encourages all Member States to take measures to raise awareness about autism throughout society and to encourage early diagnosis and early intervention. It further expresses deep concern at the prevalence and high rate of autism in children in all regions of the world and the consequent developmental challenges.

According to the Autism Society of America, autism affects between 1 to 1.5 million Americans; costs $90 billion annually of which adults comprise fully 90% of service costs; and will rise to an annual cost for health management services ranging between $200 and $400 billion in the next decade.

On the April 2, 2009 edition of ABC News’ Good Morning America, anchor Robin Roberts introduced WAAD stating it is “a day to remember the millions affected by this. Now, we look at the millions of parents and children who struggle to get their children the care they desperately need.” Reporter Deborah Roberts covered the story, highlighting a recent Harvard School of Public Health study that estimated the costs of raising an autistic child through adulthood at just above $3 million. Roberts featured two families; the first was of Ann Guay, policy analyst at the Massachusetts Advocates for Children[1], whose son was diagnosed with autism at the age of three. As Roberts noted, “Ann was fortunate. She had the financial means to care for Brian and get him additional services.” Next, she and Guay presented Santa Reyes, mother of an autistic son who was also diagnosed at the age of three. Reyes is of limited English proficiency and “had no idea where to turn for help.” Speaking through a translator, Reyes said that her son “was not receiving the right services, including speech therapy.” Guay noted that “Many of [Massachusetts Advocates] clients have linguistic and cultural barriers. They need to sort of navigate the system, where they don't always speak English.”

Deborah Roberts also spoke with Bob Wright, co-founder of Autism Speaks, the U.S.’s leading advocacy group funding autism research and assisting impacted families. Responding to Roberts’ question about breaking the cultural barriers to accessing care for autistic children, Wright stated, “If you are African American, Hispanic, or your first language is not English, then you're highly likely to be diagnosed in kindergarten or first grade, not having had early diagnosis. …. And then in that situation you've missed out on all the earlier interventions.” Roberts reported, “Santa learned just how powerful those services can be. After one year, she's seen dramatic improvement in her son, who's now reading and writing both English and Spanish. And even doing math.”

Anchor Robin Roberts noted that these parents have rights but remain unaware of them, Deborah Roberts agreed and added, “And a lot of the parents, especially if they don't speak English, or they don't have the financial means, they don't know that even in the public school systems, they have a right to have a certain education program for their children, or a therapy program for their children. It's important that they know these things.” Guay noted that Santa’s son was but one child and the challenge is to find ways that allow other families access to knowledge of early prevention and treatment services, and their rights.

Why am I writing about WAAD? It isn’t just because I know families with autistic children. It’s because these powerful stories demonstrate vividly how certain groups remain unaware of their rights and unable to care for their wonderful children simply because “the system” isn’t designed for them. Imagine what Santa’s son could be doing in addition to being bilingual and doing math had he been able to access early intervention programs. Perhaps he’d be speaking a third language, or working on his arts skills. And let’s not forget what “cultural barriers” implies—it shows how differences in life achievement result from the intersection of various ways of “othering” people into specific groups. Here, lower-income status coupled with racial “minority” status is amplified by entrenched gender norms that keep women from having the same knowledge that some marginalized men might, or might not, have.

Inequality of life opportunities is complicated and non-linear. Institutionalized norms and practices allow our healthcare system to provide universal intervention programs, which could cut long-term healthcare costs for autistic families and the system itself. But no matter how well-intentioned, a story like Santa’s is a strong reminder of the need for targeted universalism as described in the Values chapter of our recently published Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. Rawls might seem “abstract,” as might the notion of “distributive justice.” But the concrete facts of normalized and systemic marginalization couldn’t be clearer than the disproportionate lack of access to intervention programs that families not as fortunate as Santa’s confront every day.

The WAAD website states: “By bringing together autism organizations all around the world, we will give a voice to the millions of individuals worldwide who are undiagnosed, misunderstood and looking for help. Please join us in our effort to inspire compassion, inclusion and hope.” In keeping with the normative framework and the intent with which NCRP’s Criteria were developed, I couldn’t agree more. Just as we can bring voice to the millions of individuals impacted by autism, through inclusion and hope, philanthropy and nonprofits can use justice, inclusion and hope as we did to ground our recommendation that funders provide 50% of their grant dollars for the benefit of marginalized communities, broadly defined. Not only will autistic children and their families benefit, but all American families and our healthcare system can reap benefits by adopting targeted universalism in their approaches to early treatment and care.

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

[1] Massachusetts Advocates for Children is a Boston area organization that assists lower-income families.