posted on: Tuesday, January 26, 2010

By Andrew Grant-Thomas

If you’re reading Keeping a Close Eye… you probably don’t need to be cautioned against the rosy view that Barack Obama’s election ushered in racial and social nirvana. Nevertheless, over the last year and more the counterpoints have come, fast and furious: the disparate impacts of our credit, lending and foreclosure crises; the ongoing economic recession; the debate over health care, now seemingly doomed to an unhappy ending; the hullabaloo over Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” claim, the “Birthers” phenomenon… on and on.

Just yesterday a friend sent a link to an article about a guy named Moose who wants to start a whites-only – actually, for “natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race” – basketball league in Augusta, Georgia. It’s not about racism, says Moose: “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch? … we should have the right to move ourselves in a better direction.” Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

Sadly, in this era of continued deep structural or systemic racism, of pervasive implicit biases even among folks who sincerely mean better, of the marginalization of efforts to help the marginalized, and their own marginalization even within such efforts, the Mooses of the world may be the least of our worries. Sound hopeless? It’s not But here’s the million-dollar question:

How do we proceed?

On March 11-13, 2010 in Columbus Ohio, the staff of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and some 600+ of your fellow advocates, activists, scholars, students, spoken-word artists and just-plain-folks of all stripes will engage all this and more at our conference on Transforming Race: Crisis and Opportunity in the Age of Obama. Similar to NCRP’s work under Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project (GCIP), our work is organized around three themes critical to equity and social justice work: Racial Dynamics and Systems Thinking; Race Talk; and Race, Recession, and Recovery. Click this link for more on these themes and to peek at the agenda.

Transforming Race will begin with two pre-conference training sessions for social justice workers – one on “opportunity communities” by the Kirwan Institute, and one on applying systems thinking to race. The second piece is likely familiar to readers of NCRP’s Criteria. The Values chapter, co-authored by Kirwan’s executive director, john a. powell, talks about the concept of “targeted universalism.” Targeted universalism might sound like an oxymoron; it’s not. It’s about ensuring that efforts to meet the needs of our most vulnerable populations are sensitive to the particulars of how they are situated within the web of policies. Institutions, and systems that shape opportunities for us all. Ultimately, it is about creating a more socially inclusive society in which we all fare better.

At a time when major foundations like the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Wood Funds of Chicago, Funders for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Issues, and many other racial justice workers are adopting structural racism and systems thinking as an analytical framework, it is critical that we look to systems work in other arenas (business, environmentalism, engineering, medicine) to inform and deepen our own approaches.

That’s what Transforming Race is really about – taking lessons learned from all sectors to improve practice and life opportunities for the most marginalized, and to build a more just, equitable, and sustainable future for all of us. Like NCRP, of which Kirwan is a member, we see philanthropy playing a crucial role in enhancing the common good by supporting nonprofit advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement through grantmaking. These strategies have shown tremendous “return on investments” for foundations, while addressing the needs of our diverse communities.

Registration is open! We hope to see you in March!

Andrew Grant-Thomas is director of Transforming Race, and deputy director of the Kirwan Institute at The Ohio State University.

posted on: Thursday, October 29, 2009

by Julia Craig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.

posted on: Friday, September 04, 2009

On August 27, 2009, the California Endowment announced that it will allocate $4 million in support of a statewide campaign that seeks to encourage participation in the upcoming 2010 U.S. census, especially among “hard to count” populations. As described in the press release, these populations include some of the state’s “most vulnerable residents – low-income communities and communities of color.” It also noted that California houses 10 of the country’s 50 hardest to count counties, which are “home to large populations that have been historically underrepresented in the census, including immigrants, people of color, low-income communities, rural areas and those who live in multi-family housing.” The Endowment’s work will target explicitly these 10 communities in an effort to bolster participation among these historically marginalized groups.

Kudos to the California Endowment for recognizing the importance of counting each person for the Census for all the reasons mentioned in the press release. And even more, I applaud this grantmaker for focusing its efforts on the ten counties with those populations that would otherwise remain excluded.

Social inclusion is important for so many reasons and it has the power to bring us all together in ways that benefit all our communities. Being counted is the first step toward being included in a community or a society. If focusing on underrepresented communities in ten counties in California has the kind of ripple effect on various facets of wellbeing described in the press release, what would the world look like if all foundations identified explicitly the intended beneficiaries of their grants, prioritizing the most vulnerable in their work? Maybe those most disenfranchised one day wouldn’t be so hard to count.

I’m also encouraged by the fact that the Endowment will work collaboratively with other funders. Dr. Robert K. Ross, president and CEO of the Endowment praised the California Community Foundation, which announced recently that it would fund nonprofits working to encourage census participation in Los Angeles. One of this community foundation’s guiding principles is a commitment to collaboration because problems are best addressed when ordinary citizens are civically engaged and included in the process of addressing challenges, along with institutions and communities. That’s exactly why we began our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project – we all benefit when ordinary citizens are civically active and engaged.

The Funders Census Initiative is a great example of foundations working collaboratively. This self-described ad hoc working group is “committed to stimulating interest in the 2010 Census among funders and their grantees. It strives to move both groups to support, contribute, and engage in efforts for a fair and accurate decennial count, with a focus on hard-to-count communities.”

These are very encouraging trends in philanthropy during a challenging time for our sector. If more members of our civic sector begin to see the value of working in relationship rather than in isolation, we could bolster our impact and ride out the current challenges we’re facing.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in our comments!

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

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: Thursday, June 18, 2009

By Kevin Laskowski

This post is the final post in a series that looks deeper into the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View previous posts in the series.

It’s unfortunate that critics would have you believe that the data and recommendations found in Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best come entirely out of left field invented of whole cloth. The sad reality is that such visceral reactions are both predictable and understandable. It’s much easier to marginalize and dismiss a call to do more for those with the least wealth, access, and opportunity than it is to engage the substance of this work.

The full report is divided into four chapters, each covering a criterion and its corresponding benchmarks. The book’s 440 footnotes are a “who’s who” of philanthropic research and commentary. Critics may not agree with our conclusions, but attempts to paint the criteria as “arbitrary” or politically motivated simply ignore widespread, sector-wide calls for philanthropy to be more inclusive, effective, transparent, accountable, and responsive. Just ask the more than 140 sector leaders who have endorsed them so far.

NCRP has taken positions on many of the issues confronted in Criteria in the past. Criteria differs from previous efforts in that it draws lines in the sand, calling on grantmakers to do more for the nonprofits and communities they care about. To demonstrate that grantmakers can do more and that some foundations already have, we used a custom dataset from the Foundation Center. This dataset included detailed information on more than 1,200 of the largest foundations in the country, and their grants of $10,000 or more for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Data were consistently collected from our sample of 809. A full description of the methodology can be found in the Data Appendix.

NCRP then examined aggregate giving patterns and disaggregated data to determine aspirational but achievable goals. For example, given the case presented in favor of general operating support and in light of the available data, NCRP believes that grantmakers practicing Philanthropy at Its Best provide 50 percent of their grant dollars as general operating support (125 foundations met this benchmark).

Measuring giving to marginalized communities was a bit trickier. The Foundation Center tracks giving to “special population groups,” providing important insight into the compelling question of who benefits from philanthropic giving. Although some grants are designated as benefitting one or more of these groups by the foundations themselves and the Foundation Center, these are not double-counted. We identified 11 of these groups as “marginalized communities” and examined foundation giving so classified. We were disappointed to discover that only one in every three grant dollars in the sample were for the intended benefit of marginalized communities, broadly defined.

Noting the inequalities that can be unconsciously reinforced by philanthropic intervention and the importance of targeted universalist approaches, NCRP suggests grantmakers devote at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of marginalized communities, broadly defined (108 foundations in the sample met this benchmark).

It’s important to note that this is giving that is intended to benefit marginalized groups. For instance, an environmental grantmaker might mark a grant preserving clean air and water for people in rural areas as benefitting economically disadvantaged people and single parents if they know the demographics of the areas in which they work. Or, an education funder might mark a scholarship program as helping racial and ethnic minorities because of the scholarship’s requirements.

It’s not about the cause or group funded but who ultimately benefits from the activity made possible by the foundation’s grants - and whether foundations are considering who benefits when they make their grants. Are foundations hoping the benefits they create will eventually reach those in need, or are they taking steps to make sure they do?

NCRP then listed those foundations that met the Criteria within the 809 foundations in the sample. That wasn’t to say that those who didn’t appear on those lists haven’t done wonderful things or that those who did appear on the lists cannot continue to improve. The lists are illustrative — that’s all.

If these exemplary foundations can do it, we ask, why can’t more grantmakers join them?

Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Friday, June 05, 2009

By Kevin Laskowski

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

You don’t have to give up your commitment to a cause or community to follow NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. On the contrary, pursuing the Criteria’s benchmarks increases your chances of being more effective.

Criteria was not designed to undermine donor intent but to minimize the harmful unintended consequences of thousands of grantmakers pursuing their private visions of the public good. Currently, donors are free to pursue their unique visions of the public good and enshrine their values in trusts and foundations. That’s largely a good thing, but NCRP and others have noted the problems that can arise.

For instance, the desire of large foundations to be more strategic has led to the funding of program grants and a proliferation of reporting requirements. There’s nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves. Such things can aid effectiveness and accountability. The problems arise when nonprofits confront an array of idiosyncratic requirements that result in sector-wide duplicated and wasted efforts for grants that leave them cash-poor when rent and payroll are due. It’s for these reasons, among others, that Criteria encourages reporting requirements commensurate with grant size and multi-year and general operating support grants.

Furthermore, despite foundations engaging in activities that conceivably benefit everyone, we find that marginalized groups - low-income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women and girls, people with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, senior citizens, immigrants and refugees, victims of crime and abuse, offenders and ex-offenders, single parents, and LGBTQ citizens - are consistently left behind in philanthropy. In fact, only 1 in 3 grant dollars are intended for the benefit of these communities. Even as we spend millions to improve health care and outcomes for children and families in this country, Native American women experience infant mortality rates 20 percent higher than those of other races in the U.S., and children of color living in just 10 New York neighborhoods experience 90 percent of all lead poisoning in the city. These are just a sample of the statistics the report cites in its review of how inequity affects philanthropic activity. Disparities of all kinds are widening, and the refusal to pay attention to them limits foundation effectiveness.

That’s why Criteria suggests that at least 50 percent of a foundation’s grant dollars benefit marginalized communities. If you’re concerned about health, education, the environment, or the arts, it would be wise to be aware that different communities tend to benefit disproportionately from the fruits of philanthropy. Social disparities tend to reproduce themselves in philanthropic programming. NCRP does not suggest that you should stop caring about, say, neuroscience or classical music. We simply suggest that we in the sector consider how to broaden the beneficiaries of our grantmaking. Let’s ask ourselves: "Whatever public benefit I hope to create, how can I ensure that those on the margins are not left out?"

If you’re an arts funder, you might ask how low-income people or those with disabilities get access to the concerts, exhibits, or shows you help create. If you’re an education funder, you might ask about the racial diversity of the schools that receive your funds to guarantee that you are making opportunities available to all who want to succeed. If you fund the environment, you might ask if everyone’s air, soil, and water are clean. You might be surprised to find that low-income people and minorities bear the brunt of pollution and impacts of climate change.

Think of it this way: if you fund the core institutions of a community, those on the periphery may benefit, but if you make sure the benefit reaches the periphery, the condition of everyone in the community is improved.

It’s about impact — as Peter and Jennifer Buffett's recent announcement to "empower women and girls worldwide" demonstrates:

'The Buffetts say they believe focusing on helping women and girls seems like the way to make the greatest difference in the world.

"It just was logical for us after we really thought about it," Jennifer Buffett said. "If you empower adolescent girls who are the mother of every child yet to be born - if they have more resources, better health, more empowerment, more of a role in their communities, decision making, they can delay marriage and become better educated - they have so much more to offer their sons, their daughters in that next generation."'

As the Buffetts seem to believe, when grants are targeted based on these systemic issues — in their case, the role women can and do play in their communities — the benefits can bubble up and out for generations to come.

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.”

Critics like to pretend that donor intent is at odds with Criteria. On the contrary, they’re among a donor’s best shots at ensuring that their good intentions will lead to real improvements for the causes and communities we all care about.

Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Monday, May 11, 2009

by Yna C. Moore

I found some pretty sobering numbers on the CDC website:
- 14 percent of women aged 18 years or older are in fair or poor health
- 62 percent of women aged 20 years or older are overweight
- 33 percent of women aged 20 years or older have hypertension
- Heart Disease, diabetes and stroke are among the top causes of death among women, no matter the race.

Doctors and scientists in the biomedical sciences continue their untiring efforts to find the latest cures, technologies, procedures and preventative interventions for the numerous diseases that plague humanity. But no matter how breathtaking a discovery, there continues what seems to be a ginormous wall between science and the sick: that wall is called “access denied.” Sadly, systemic and institutional barriers continues to exist that prevent many from benefiting from the fruits of science. Critical drugs and medical procedures are available only for those who can afford the enormous cost. Many in need do not have health insurance, and even those that do cannot necessarily afford the co-insurance and other out-of-pocket expenses for specialized procedures, medications and other long-term care.

In a Reuters article yesterday, Julie Steenhuysen reported that “seven out of 10 women have no insurance, not enough insurance or are in debt because of medical bills.” She also noted a recent study by researchers from The Commonwealth Fund that found that women are hit harder by rising health costs because “they have lower average incomes and spend more on healthcare than men, and because they use the health system more often than men.”

A series of reports by NCRP titled Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities includes stories of how nonprofit community advocates and organizers are helping to tear down the wall. For example, in North Carolina, a number of local groups provide specialty services for the under- and uninsured, secure additional resources for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment within the state, and create prescription drug assistance programs for lower-income senior citizens. In New Mexico, the study documented efforts to secure state and federal funding for Medicaid and beef up health services for Native Americans. These and other efforts were made possible by foundation grants, which provided the majority of funds for the work in these two sites.

As we mark National Women’s Health Week, we urge foundations to look at bold and innovative ways to help knock down the giant wall and in its place build a bridge between discovery and those who could benefit from the breakthroughs.

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

By Niki Jagpal

Since its establishment by Congress in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is the “single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation.” Over 900 offices nationwide and 137 independent nonprofit legal aid programs receive 95 percent of LSC funds to support equal access to justice and much-needed legal aid services for lower-income U.S. citizens. Since 1996, in each appropriations cycle, the LSC has fought against a cumbersome appropriations rider that the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies keeps inserting, which would have disproportionate impact on lower-income families that need a variety of legal services. Although the federal government provides less than 50 percent of the monies that the LSC disburses to support legal aid for Americans, each rider has included one especially troublesome restriction: it would prevent any program that receive LSC funds from using any non-LSC funds, including funds from foundations, from any programmatic work that is not allowed to be funded using LSC monies.

New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice continues its fight against this unnecessary and inequitable federal restriction. In 2005, NCRP was among a large number of nonpartisan nonprofits, private foundations and other stakeholders that filed an amicus brief in Velazquez v. Legal Services Corporation, a case that Brennan continues to litigate. The 2005 signatories included numerous private foundations such the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Gimbel Foundation, and the Community Foundation Serving Boulder County. These and other foundations joined with the nonprofits in support of the Brennan Center and its partner stakeholders’ effort to remove the restriction on the use of non-LSC funds.

On May 4, 2009 NCRP joined with more than 60 colleague agencies to submit a letter to four members of the Congressional Subcommittee in support of ensuring legal aid availability to our nation’s lower-income citizens. As the factsheet produced by the Brennan Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Alliance for Justice, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and OMB Watch noted, “The restriction interferes with choices of state, local and private charitable donors about how to spend their money.” The organizations recommended a no-cost amendment to the LSC rider, which included, among other changes, the removal of “the application of the LSC restrictions to state, local, private and other non-LSC funds that legal aid organizations receive.” Other signatories to the letter include the Poverty & Race Research Action Center, the Ella Fitzgerald Charitable Foundation and the Independent Sector.

On May 7, 2009, the Obama administration’s FY10 budget called for removing the restriction on using non-LSC funds for this critical work. As noted by the Brennan Center’s press release, “The President’s Budget recommends that Congress remove three funding restrictions that have been placed for the last 13 years on independent legal aid organizations that receive part of their funding from the federal Legal Services Corporation (LSC).” Obama’s budget proposes that Congress allow the close to $500 million in non-LSC funds, including private foundation dollars, that have been inaccessible for nearly 15 years to any group that receives federal LSC funds.

NCRP is honored to have been a signatory to the letter and will continue to support the Brennan Center and other groups that engage in critical work to demonstrate the important role foundation funding can play in ensuring a more just and equitable access to the courts and legal services for our country’s lower-income citizens. Ensuring equal access to our justice system is essential to protecting the basic civil rights of those who lack financial means or knowledge to protect their fundamental rights. Safeguarding legal rights within our justice system by explicitly prioritizing the needs of our economically marginalized is a prime example of targeted universalism in action.

Niki Jagpal is research & policy director at NCRP.

posted on: Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Since 1970, we have been celebrating Earth Day on April 22nd, following the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that year. As the EPA’s website states:

“EPA was born in 1970 - a time when rivers caught fire and cities were hidden under dense clouds of smoke. We've made remarkable progress since then in protecting human health and safeguarding the natural environment.”

The EPA site provides an impressive history of progress and related legislation implemented in the United States for each decade through 2007. More recently, an article by ABC News notes that the agency identified six greenhouse gases that “endanger public health and welfare” of the American people. These gases, they said, contribute to climate change, which is causing more heat waves, droughts and flooding, and is threatening food and water supplies.” In the article, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson notes, “It’s a serious problem for us and for the world […] And the impacts of climate change are not just life and death, but they are economic costs that are hard to extrapolate into the future.”

Jackson’s quote reminded me of a recent blog post by Mallika Chopra on the Huffington Post titled “1,500 Farmers in India Commit Suicide: A Wake-Up Call for Humanity.” In that post, Chopra notes that over 1,500 farmers in one Indian state committed suicide because of rapidly dropping water levels and high-levels of economic indebtedness leading to complete devastation and hopelessness. She also notes a similar trend in Australia, where wildfires and resource depletion caused by severe droughts and heat waves, the severity of which are linked to global warming and climate change, have led to a high suicide rate among farmers. One Australian farmer commits suicide every four days.

I was most struck by the similarities between Chopra’s closing paragraphs and Jackson’s statement in the ABC News story:

“These stories are a reminder that our personal wellness is inextricably linked to global wellness. We need to nurture Mother Earth, and address the tangled hierarchy of pollution, global warming, human rights, production, economies, wealth, etc.

With Earth Day approaching next week, I hope that all of us will set intentions, followed up with action, on how we can make the planet, and in turn, the lives of our fellow humans, healthier and more peaceful.”

Many international development agencies and U.S.-based grantmakers prioritize global warming or climate change in their relief work and grantmaking. These institutions are contributing to the global common good and their missions and vision are indisputably laudable.

What I want to focus on in this discussion of climate change are two important issues raised by Jackson and Chopra: the roles of economic inequality and global interdependence. Jackson notes the future economic costs of climate change today; Chopra notes the role of indebtedness coupled with the impacts of global warming on the Indian farmers’ suicide rate. I see an important connection to philanthropy and specifically to those funders whose grants are promoting needed research and development work to alleviate and prevent harms today from becoming tomorrow’s problems.

Some have challenged NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best’s benchmark for marginalized communities by asking how universalist programs such as climate change research grants can or should target or focus intentionally on the benefit of this work to marginalized communities when they will inevitably benefit them in the long run. I don’t dispute for a second that this is true: will the Indian farmers benefit from grants that eventually restore their water levels to sustainable levels? Of course they will. But why wait for the benefit of such research efforts to trickle down to those who are disproportionally affected by climate change now? Many farmers like those from Chattisgarh simply can’t wait for the undeterminable number of years that it would take for them to benefit from the research. The truth is that climate change is both a scientific phenomenon and a result of political, economic and social decisions of the past. It will take a comprehensive and systemic approach to truly combat climate change, mitigate its effects and increase the resilience of our communities from its impacts. In adopting such an approach, funders with a focus on climate change research need not deviate from donor intent. But by acknowledging the increasing interdependence of global economies and explicitly ensuring that the intersecting needs of vulnerable groups like the Indian farmers are addressed within foundation grants, donors could bolster significantly the impact of their grant dollars.

To Chopra and Jackson’s second point about the growing interdependence of the world, Chopra notes the need to acknowledge the “tangled hierarchy” of global warming, wealth, human rights and production. She hits the proverbial nail on the head: economics is but one element of our growing interdependence. What happens in Australia and India will impact us in the United States. Moreover, we can’t leave today’s problems until tomorrow; we can’t leave future generations to deal with the negative consequences of our actions today; and we are not likely to be successful in addressing the numerous challenges of climate change if the economic needs of farmers in Chattisgarh and other vulnerable groups around the world aren’t included in our strategy to protect the environment.

Our aspirational goal that 50 percent of a foundation’s grant dollars be intended to benefit marginalized communities, broadly defined, does not present grantmakers with an either or choice. For those grantmakers whose missions aren’t directly related to underservered groups, we suggest a lower level of 20 percent (a measure met by just over half our sample in Criteria and we didn’t control for mission.) As I said above, a universalist program that uses the systems approach we present in our Values chapter of Criteria doesn’t force grantmakers to fund only those programs that benefit vulnerable populations. Instead, by employing targeted universalism, grantmakers can increase their impact through an integrated and holistic approach to identifying problems from the outset and finding solutions to those challenges. Grantmakers have an opportunity to see more impact from their grants without in any way violating donor intent.

I’ll end by asking you to join this conversation and share a story like Chopra’s or Jackson’s. Does your environmental grant explicitly intend to benefit an underserved group? I’d love to hear your story; after all, it’s the individual stories that get lost in the overly technocratic discussions of who benefits or what counts, etc. As each of us “sets intentions” in some way to do our part to fix our crumbling ecosystem system today, I ask institutional grantmakers to consider how targeted universalism offers a powerful means to transform philanthropy and make the world a better place for each of us by strengthening our communities.

P.S.: For more on climate change and Criteria, check out our executive director Aaron Dorfman’s op-ed in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

posted on: Monday, April 20, 2009

By Niki Jagpal

The Foundation Center’s Philanthropy News Digest Blog, PhilanTopic features a March 30 story from Jolene Constance, assistant warden at the C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center in Louisiana, a state-run prison for adult males. Titled Grants that Make a Difference, Constance’s story isn’t about a monetary grant; instead, she shares a story about a donation of books to the prison by the Louisville, KY-based National Center for Family Literacy and the National Center for Family Literacy in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. PhilanTopic describes the books as “an instrument of change and opportunity.” The two grantmakers donated some 1,000 books on National Family Literacy Day weekend and alternating weekends during the month of November. The books went to children of incarcerated men, who read them to their children when they visit.

As Constance’s story notes, children of imprisoned parents are the “silent victims of crime”: monetary or logistical constraints can limit the number of visits that are possible with their parents who they do not see as ‘offenders’ but simply as loved ones from whom they are removed. As the story notes, an imprisoned father reading to his child “facilitates reconciliation and a bonding experience that is rare in a prison setting.” A second impact of the donated books is equally important – they “bridge literacy barriers” by helping to remove the stigma frequently associated with lower literacy level books read by incarcerated people. Because these men read the same books in literacy classes, instead of being seen as less educated, they’re now seen as "caring parents." The most important part of Constance’s story is worth quoting verbatim:

"What makes this particular grant a good example of the effective use of philanthropic funds?

It has been proven that children of incarcerated parents are at greater risk of becoming offenders themselves. By breaking that link, we can save a whole generation of young people from becoming adjudicated offenders, reduce the number of crime victims, and save taxpayer dollars now spent to house offenders. Rebuilding relationships between offenders who are being discharged and their families is priceless. If offenders are committed to their families, they are less likely to recidivate and more likely to become productive members of society, which means one less single parent household due to incarceration, one less family seeking financial support from government entities, and one less victim of a senseless crime."

I couldn’t agree more: this is effective and strategic philanthropy. In addition to the issues noted in this story, The Sentencing Project and the Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009 include statistics and other related information about the United States’ “criminal justice system.” As noted on the Measure of America website under "factoids" section, measured in absolute numbers, we have more of our citizens in prisons than any other country in the world; we comprise five percent of the world’s people but our incarcerated men and women make up close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners; and the average education level among our imprisoned population is only 11 years of schooling. And our recidivism rate is about two-thirds per among released ex-offenders. Something doesn’t quite add up here, does it?

Offenders and ex-offenders were among the 11 special populations we analyzed in developing our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. As we highlighted in our analysis, even when defining marginalized communities so broadly, only $1 out of every $3 could be classified as benefitting these groups in the aggregate. In analyzing foundation giving for offenders and ex-offenders, giving that benefits this group comprised only 0.7 percent of total foundation giving from the 2004-2006 time period and we found notable variability among the top 25 funders. As a proportion of overall giving, the range for the top five funders for work that seeks to benefit offenders and ex-offenders was 14.7-57.7 percent. And unfortunately, the top funder of this work, the JEHT Foundation, which was among the many foundations victimized by Bernard Madoff, is now out of business.

The “Men Read” program offers one example of exemplary philanthropy in action but considering the scope of the problem, institutional philanthropy has a real opportunity to become more effective and strategic by targeting its grant dollars to benefit offenders and ex-offenders. Especially with the JEHT Foundation’s demise, will your foundation rise to this challenge? Will you consider prioritizing this group in your grantmaking? Not only would our imprisoned citizens, their families and children benefit from such strategic grantmaking, all of us would fare better. Each of us, especially children of imprisoned citizens, would see a more level playing field and have more reason to hope for social advancement and inclusion.

Does your institution or you have a compelling story like the “Men Read” program? We’d love to hear from you if you do so we can highlight the important contributions of your grantmaking in making the world more just for all of us.

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at 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.