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: Friday, October 02, 2009

By Niki Jagpal

A few days ago, we received a thoughtful response from Michaelon Wright regarding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. He raised some really important issues,

“I read your publication and the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Philanthropy at its Best is delivering sustainable, desirable outcomes, replicatable outcomes. Using methods for measuring an organizations (non-profits) effectiveness in delivering the outcome. Holding the non-profit accountable for how funds are spent, keeping overhead in check and delivering services effectively and efficiently. We as a philanthropic community have been literally throwing our money away on organizations that enable behavior contrary to becomming a responsible, productive member of society and organizations that are overhead intensive and employ staff not sufficiently trained or motivated to deliver results. The problem has not been not enough money thrown at societies ills, it is that there has been little to no accountability for results. Continous funding of an organization for a period of years does not necessarily make that organization more effective. Funding needs to be strictly based on results achieved. Frankly I do not think any of your criteria will improve the ability of Philanthropy to make a difference in the communities they serve. The focus for too long has been on increasing giving and unfortunately not on attaining the desired results.”

I very much appreciated his feedback. Different perspectives and opinions that lead to constructive and informed debates are an important way for us to find common ground and work together to strengthen our sector as a whole. It’s exactly this kind of discussion we all need at this critical time. As Gara LaMarche, president and CEO of the Atlantic Philanthropies and one of our board members said when we released the book:

“What [Criteria] does, in my view, very usefully, is engage in a debate that's been going on in philanthropy for the last several years-that is a debate about philanthropic impact and effectiveness. And that debate, in my view, has for the most part been somewhat sterile and technocratic. ... What it needs to do is have more content, which connects the question of effectiveness to the change you are trying to make in the world. I think [Criteria] makes an enormous contribution to that. ...”

I don’t disagree with Michaelon that grantee organizations ought to be evaluated based on outcomes. But I think it’s equally important that grantmakers be held to the same accountability measures – an emphasis on the outcomes and impact that an institution has on the issues related to its mission and donor intent. As we note in Criteria, just as profit is the bottom line for gauging impact in the private sector, impact is the best measure for our sector’s effectiveness.

When foundations provide core support and multi-year grants, nonprofits are better able to focus on outcomes and results achieved than when they have grants that restrict them to specific programmatic activities. We believe that grantmakers can provide these types of grants and hold their nonprofit grantees responsible, and we provided examples of funders in the book who’ve seen real impact by partnering with grantees in this way.

He’s right that multi-year funding doesn’t guarantee effectiveness. But effectiveness is influenced by a grantees’ ability to respond to the communities it serves. And often, one can’t predetermine what the results of a given intervention will be, nor if other more urgent issues or opportunities to achieve results that benefit our communities might arise. Would you agree that the impact on communities is the best measure of how effective grantee and grantmaking institutions are?

For far too long, most members of our sector have worked in silos, with many notable exceptions. Now’s the time for us to move beyond that approach, to see each others as partners in pursuit of the common good and to truly rethink the grantee-funder relationship.

I’d like to thank Michaelon for sharing his thoughts and invite others to join in this conversation so we can continue this long-overdue discussion about what really matters to make the civic sector the best complement to public and private sectors’ work for the betterment of our society.

PS – I encourage everyone to review this page on Criteria where we address many misperceptions of this book and its intent.

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

posted on: Thursday, June 25, 2009

By Julia Craig

Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama called on the nation’s philanthropic institutions to seize the opportunity to get involved in economic recovery efforts. Speaking at a luncheon of Washington-area philanthropic organizations and nonprofits, Mrs. Obama told the group that despite government programs such as the Serve America Act that greatly expands AmeriCorps and volunteer opportunities, “Washington can only do so much.”

Mrs. Obama recalled her time as a community organizer and nonprofit staff member working on fundraising and grant reports. She said that multi-year grants allowed her to make realistic budgets and build capacity through investments in technology and staff. She also noted the importance of demonstrating impact in order for funders and community members to maintain interest in supporting the work of nonprofits. Mrs. Obama encouraged the group to take advantage of federal programs designed to increase volunteerism and encouraged funders to come together with communities and nonprofit organizations to develop solutions to the current economic crisis at the local level.

In Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best, NCRP calls on grantmakers to designate 50 percent of their grants as multi-year funding and 50 percent as general operating support. These types of support best allow nonprofit organizations to fulfill their missions and meet the needs of their communities.

Flexible, multi-year support – as Michelle Obama stated – allows nonprofits to plan for the future and respond to changing needs. Given the current economic climate and the difficulty foundations and nonprofits alike are facing, it is more important than ever that philanthropic institutions fund their nonprofit partners in ways that allow them to best achieve their missions.

Has your organization ever received a multi-year grant? How have multi-year grants helped your nonprofit? We’d love to hear your stories!