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: Monday, June 01, 2009

In the Summer issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, Dr. Angela Eikenberry addresses the growing field of consumer-driven philanthropy (e.g. the Product Red campaign supported by The Gap, Apple, and Starbucks). “The Hidden Costs of Cause Marketing” details the ways in which such campaigns actually weaken the social fabric of philanthropy. The article is well worth the full read.

Consumption philanthropy, as Dr. Eikenberry calls it, serves the dual purpose of promoting a product and providing some social benefit through charitable donation. It is highly accessible and convenient; simply by choosing to buy one type of yogurt over another, consumers can easily donate to the causes they deem important. However, despite the success of cause marketing, she warns:

“Consumption philanthropy individualizes solutions to collective social problems, distracting our attention and resources away from the neediest causes, the most effective interventions, and the act of critical questioning itself. It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless. And it obscures the links between markets—their firms, products, and services—and the negative impacts they can have on human well-being. For these reasons, consumption philanthropy compromises the potential for charity to better society” (Emphasis added).

Take the example of water. Some bottled water companies donate clean water in developing countries based on the number of bottles of their water consumed in the West. A consumer chooses the brand that donates clean water and feels good knowing that she is helping someone across the world access a basic necessity. However, the consumer is still using a disposable plastic bottle and she is still contributing to the depletion of limited resources by choosing the bottle of water taken from a spring rather than filling her own re-useable cup or bottle. Cause marketing does not challenge her to think about the consequences of consumption; it instead rewards her. And when that consumer receives a solicitation seeking funds to build wells in a developing country, she is less inclined to give, feeling she has already done her part through her consumption habits.

The passive giving of cause marketing as secondary to consumption stands in stark contrast to the Dr. Eikenberry’s report on giving circles Lisa Ranghelli wrote about earlier this month. Giving circles allow people of moderate means to pool their money and have a greater impact on and deeper understanding of the causes they care about.

While highly successful campaigns have raised millions of dollars and attracted the attention of celebrities, it detaches people from the purpose of philanthropy: to provide collective solutions to social problems. As nonprofit organizations around the country struggle to cope with the current recession and increasing need, cause marketing deserves a critical look.

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.