keeping a close eye...

The Los Angeles Equation: Policy Innovation + People Power = Impact

2010-03-12T11:52:00.005-05:00

By Lisa Ranghelli

A week after presenting our findings on the impressive impacts of grassroots organizing and advocacy in Los Angeles to a hundred foundation and nonprofit leaders, I was reminded that the theme of policy innovation we highlighted there continues to ring true. At the event, I spoke about cutting edge policies community leaders developed in Southern California that were emulated elsewhere, such as community benefits agreements. Dr. Bob Ross, CEO of the California Endowment, who described his foundation’s decision to embrace advocacy and systemic change strategies, noted that “Innovation does not scale without dealing with power.” I interpreted his words to mean that you cannot make real changes to systems and institutions without challenging the powerful, and by bringing community power to bear.

L.A. Voice and the PICO National Network are dealing with power, all right!

L.A. Voice, one of 15 organizations we studied in L.A. County, is taking on the banks. On March 5th, as part of a coalition that includes SEIU, National People's Action and the California Reinvestment Coalition, L.A. Voice and PICO helped convince the Los Angeles City Council to pull city funds from irresponsible banks and set new standards for investing public dollars in institutions that offer tangible benefits to the community.

As L.A. Voice faith leader Nathan French put it, "Banks were created for people. People were not created for banks."

The legislation is designed to ensure that taxpayer money is only invested in banks that actively help families keep their homes, expand lending to small businesses to create jobs, end risky derivative deals that put public services at stake and relieve the city's budget gap. According to PICO, the move will save the city at least $10 million immediately.

PICO and its allies will be organizing in communities across the country to promote similar reforms, meeting power with power to replicate this innovative response to the financial crisis.

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

Organized for Impact

2010-03-05T12:16:00.004-05:00

By Kevin Laskowski

A gathering of more than 100 leaders in philanthropy marked the release of NCRP’s new Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County. The report documented how 15 Los Angeles-area nonprofit organizations and their allies leveraged foundation grants to secure $6.88 billion in public benefits—nearly $91 of impact for every dollar invested.

In addition to the dramatic findings of the report, participants heard from several Los Angeles grantmakers and nonprofit leaders about their experience with these strategies.

A self-described “convert” to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement strategies, Dr. Robert Ross, president of The California Endowment, discussed how the Endowment’s approach hopes to connect “grassroots and treetops,” combining capital for service provision with the resources for systemic change.

“Let’s be real,” Ross told participants. “With the possible exception of public safety, our opportunity systems are broken. Every time Sacramento or Washington don’t do their jobs, our jobs get harder.”

He acknowledged the limited resources of foundations and the difficult choices that they face in these economic times.

“Every choice we face is a Sophie’s choice,” he said. “It’s tough.”

He urged participants to “lead with results” in making the case for funding advocacy and organizing and applauded NCRP for giving grantmakers another tool to get the biggest bang for their philanthropic buck. He pointed to the importance of the popular mantra “change not charity,” also the tagline for the Liberty Hill Foundation, a noted Los Angeles-area social justice funder.

“I wish I could give you a grant big enough to steal that line,” he said, nodding to Liberty Hill staff in the audience. “Charity is good but change is better.”

Antonia Hernandez, president of the California Community Foundation, noted that her own journey in these strategies was a bit different. The former executive director of MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Hernandez is no recent convert to the importance of funding strategies that effect change.

She explained how important it was to discuss the difficult choices grantmakers face with trustees and educate others about all the options available.

As Los Angeles faced the loss of millions in Section 8 housing vouchers, the board of the community foundation could attempt to devote philanthropic resources to make up the difference.

“Or, for a $50,000 grant, we can fund an advocate to Washington,” she said.

In the same way that nonprofits use litigation, advocacy, organizing, and other strategies, Hernandez said foundations bring the limited resources they’re given to bear on the serious challenges facing Los Angeles and the country as a whole.

Is your foundation interested in learning more about how to effectively support nonprofit advocacy and community organizing? Is your community organization interested in learning more about making the case for advocacy, organizing, or civic engagement? Contact us today!

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

L.A. Sets National Precedents with Bus Riders Union

2010-02-25T13:31:00.007-05:00

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.

Annual Reports – Tell Us How You Want It! (Part II)

2010-02-19T13:55:00.013-05:00

Editor's note: This posting has been revised to correct an incorrect link, noted below.

By Yna C. Moore

A couple of weeks ago, I developed a poll to find out what kind of annual reports from nonprofits are preferred by foundations’ staff. A heartfelt thanks to all who helped spread the word, those who provided their feedback via Twitter or in comments, and to those who responded to the poll – much appreciated!

So far, here are the preliminary results:

Multi-media (video or audio accessed via a website or a CD/DVD) = 3 votes
PDF only = 2 votes
PDF + hard copy = 2 votes
PDF + multi-media = 2 votes
Hard copy + multi-media = 2 votes
Hard copy only = 1
I do not read annual reports = 1
Other = 1
TOTAL respondents = 14

I also received a couple of insightful comments on our blog and via Twitter:

“I think it's helpful when all the information is
available online in an accessible format, whether it's PDF or something else. I
think foundations should publish annual reports as well online!”
- By Elizabeth

“A PDF available on the organization's web site is easily
accessible and can easily be printed out if hard copy is wanted. Multimedia
takes too much time -- I have a stack of DVDs from grantees and would-be
grantees waiting to be viewed -- most never will be.”
- By Benjamin

“PDF + actual data in Xcel db .csv format @NCRP
Foundations! Which types of grantee reports would you likely read?”
- By @tomkaecf via Twitter

This isn’t a scientific poll by any means, and fourteen respondents isn’t a large enough sample to come up with anything definitive. But the question of what gets read and what doesn’t affects tens of thousands of nonprofits all over the country. Now more than ever, nonprofits must be smart about how they spend their very limited time, human resources and funds. This includes determining the most effective and cost-efficient way to get their annual reports to the hands to their current or prospective funders. And there’s no way for them to find out what’s effective and what’s not if funders don’t tell them!

So I’ll keep monitoring this poll until I reach a subjectively determined goal of 100 respondents. According to the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics, there were more than 115,000 private foundations in the country in 2009. So 100 respondents is not even a drop in the bucket! But it’s a start, and I hope it will yield some useful information for nonprofits as they continue to weather the storm of the current crisis.

Please help me reach my goal! Here are some easy and quick ways:

Tweet it! (updated link)
Share with your friends on Facebook
Click on the “Share this” link at the bottom of the poll or this blog post for a bunch of other ways to help spread the word.

I’ll keep you up-to-date with our progress and interim poll results. Thank you!

Yna C. Moore is the communications director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow her on Twitter.

February: the shortest month of the year but a really important one

2010-02-19T13:17:00.004-05:00

February is black history month. It’s a time for us to remember the milestones and myriad positive steps we’ve taken as a country to be more inclusive of our black brothers and sisters. And it’s also a time to reflect on all the work that lies ahead because of persistent disparities and a seemingly universal assumption that we live in a post-racial society because we elected an African American man as our president. The NAACP has developed some fantastic multimedia tools for us to do just that.

1. Check out the Milestones page where you can learn about important dates in the history of our black brothers and sisters. You might be surprised to find out about the 1931 case of the Scottsboro Boys and their unfair treatment in the Emmett Till case. Have we gotten past that kind of racism? I don’t think so – remember the Jena Six case? Yes, they got a second chance and it was great that we came together to confront racial disparities in our justice system. When ordinary citizens are active like they were in the civil rights movement, we can make a difference. But we’ve clearly got work to do – and lots of it to ensure justice and parity in our criminal justice system (The Sentencing Project is a great resource for this if you’re interested.)
2. And then there’s the People – sure, we’ve all heard of the great Dr. Marin Luther King Jr. and other big names from the Movement. But who’s Linda Brown? Yeah, we’ve heard of Brown v. the Board of Education but check out the story of this brave third grader from Topeka. I think we can all learn something from her and her family’s story as we continue working towards a having real access to equal education.
3. There’s also the Pictures section – a great collection marking the NAACP’s 100th’s anniversary. A picture can speak a thousand words, right? I think there’s about a million in here!

Black history month is an opportunity for us to celebrate the milestones and victories and to look critically at where we stand currently so we can keep moving toward a society in which race and ethnicity really don’t determine how our life pans out. Kudos to the NAACP on 100 years of great work and for this fantastic resource.

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

"I Have Always Depended on the Kindness of [Partners]."

2010-02-10T13:57:00.005-05:00

“I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.”

- Blanche DuBoise, A Streetcar Named Desire

Photo by: Francesco Marino/freedigitalphotos.net

Playwright Tennessee Williams’ famous line also holds true on the philanthropic stage. After all, where can strangers offer more kindness than in philanthropy—where grantmakers and nonprofit leaders depend on each other—and where so many people in need depend on the grantmaker-nonprofit partnership?

Last week, Arabella Advisers, the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers (WRAG), and PNC co-hosted a panel discussion on bolstering the impact of philanthropy. The animated discussion focused on two reports: Arabella Adviser’s High-Impact Giving Opportunities: Philanthropy That Makes a Difference and WRAG’s Beyond Dollars Investing in Big Change: How Washington Area Grantmakers are Creating Lasting Impact. Although Arabella and WRAG each published independently and included different case studies, when I read the reports in sequence, I thought they equipped grantmakers with clearer advice. Overall, I viewed the strategies WRAG identified (timing and momentum, a strong voice, leveraging resources, and true partnerships) as four tools necessary for approaching any philanthropic initiative. Then, Arabella’s report suggested four philanthropic initiatives (policy advocacy, broad alliances, mission investment, and public-private partnerships) that I thought grantmakers could better pursue with the tools from WRAG’s report.

The reports shared similar messages, but the most prominent common denominator was a simple concept: partnerships. However, don’t let the simplicity detract from its significance; partnerships should be the foundation to any grantmaking strategy. Grantmaking suffocates in silos, especially in a vastly interconnected world that reaps tremendous rewards from partnerships between grantmakers and nonprofits, as well as governments, businesses, and people in need.

Partnership Benefits:
Both reports and the panelists championed the importance of partnerships, but more can be said on the topic. Foundations benefit from partnerships during every stage of the grantmaking process.

While researching a new grant opportunity, for example, partners increase the knowledge base. Think tank scholars, professors, reporters, practitioners, retired experts, and counterparts at other organizations all hold fortunes of insights and information, and they are only conversations away. Before making a funding commitment, a grantmaker can pool resources and overcome barriers to entry by partnering with another grantmaker who shares programming goals. If grantmakers forge partnerships, they will dedicate more resources to programming. Partnerships are not vehicles for grantmakers to deliver static, one-time gifts to nonprofits. Rather, I believe grantmaker-nonprofit partnerships are proof of dynamic relationships between likeminded people who see grants not as charity or hand-outs, but as instruments of social justice.

Partnership Responsibilities:

Although the reports and panelists touched on the responsibilities grantmakers and nonprofits accept when they form partnerships, partnership benefits received more time and attention. Thus, I wanted to continue the conversation of partnership responsibilities. Interestingly, however, the responsibilities I enumerate below can become benefits. By identifying and executing each of these responsibilities, the impact of philanthropic funding expands.

(1) Conduct background research:
Understand both the big picture and the nuances of a given situation (and determine if, when, and how you can replicate best practices).

(2) Learn everyone’s role:
Who is the lead decision-maker? Who comprises the supporting cast? Who labors backstage, and how can you ensure that their accomplishments receive earned recognition? How can your performance enhance the performances of others?

(3) Read from the same script:
Share a common definition and prioritization of goals (short-term and long-term), strategies for achieving those goals, and benchmarks for achieving those strategies. For example, is your goal to create better schools? Well, how do you define “better”? Does better refer to teachers? If so, are you referring to better teacher quality or quantity? What metrics will determine if the abilities or number of teachers are met? Then, consider whether deficiencies in teacher quality and quantity are the core problems, or if they are symptoms of deeper problems in the education infrastructure.

(4) Plan the length of your run (multi-year grants):
Even the largest foundations have finite resources, and they still shoulder the burdened of saying “no” to many worthy causes. So, when foundations do say “yes,” they must grant both funding and adequate time for the funding to begin reaping success. Sometimes, unrealistic expectations of certain one-year grants can lead to failure.

(5) Encourage audience participation:
Guarantee that the goals you share with your partners align with the needs of the community you serve. If realignment is needed, listen to community members and adapt. Don’t squeeze the proverbial square peg in the round hole. Also, consider the long-term value of civic engagement, advocacy, and/or community organizing (and realize that your audience may have a different lexicon for these ideas).

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

A New Portal for Philanthropic Transparency?

2010-02-09T14:41:00.003-05:00

By Aaron Dorfman

I’ve been trapped in my house since Friday night due to the recent blizzard here in the national capital region. And even with all the time spent shoveling and playing in the snow, I managed to make time to catch up on some philanthropy-related items.

Ten days ago, the Foundation Center launched an important new initiative meant to encourage greater transparency among foundations, and one thing I did while snowed in was play around on the site. In a blog post announcing the project, Foundation Center President Brad Smith wrote:

“With the launch of a new public Web portal, www.glasspockets.org, the Foundation Center reaches back to its founding values. We believe strongly in philanthropic freedom, the kind of independence that allows foundations to be innovative, take risks, and work on long-term solutions to some of the world’s most vexing problems. But the best way to preserve philanthropic freedom is not to hide behind it; rather, foundations increasingly need to tell the story of what they do, why they do it, and what difference it makes.

“Why transparency? Foundations use private wealth to serve the public good for which they receive a tax exemption in return. While some have argued that the tax exemption does not legally compel foundations to behave in any particular way, foundations' challenges are more perceptual than legal. No sector -- government, church, business, or charitable -- gets a free pass in the world of 24/7 media, blogs, YouTube, Twitter, crowdsourcing, and digital everything. Why should foundations? Collectively, America's foundations control more than $500 billion in assets, spend some $46 billion a year in grants and on programs, and, in some localities and on some issues, are the major players. And as foundations strive to become more strategic and effective, their impact and influence will grow -- as will the curiosity, praise, criticism, and scrutiny they attract.”

The site provides a clear assessment of whether or not individual foundations make certain information available to the public. For example: does the foundation make available on its website its 990PF return? Does the foundation provide information about its diversity practices? Does the foundation have a mechanism in place to get feedback from grantees? In all, the site tracks 22 difference practices and provides direct links to the information on the foundation’s website.

I found the site fascinating, and I am hopeful that it will create additional pressure for foundations to adopt some of these practices and become more transparent. In perusing the site, I found myself wondering about a few notable philanthropic giants:

Why doesn’t the Hewlett foundation provide information about its diversity practices? Surely they must be sensitive to how they are regarded on issues of race, considering the often contentious debate over AB 624 in California. Why not proactively communicate about these issues with the community?

Why doesn’t the Ford Foundation have any way to get feedback from grantees? Considering the major overhaul they gave to their grantmaking programs recently, one would think the foundation would want to have a way to systematically get feedback from its nonprofit partners.

Why doesn’t the Gates Foundation share information about its executive compensation process? Their new CEO earns nearly one million dollars per year, yet he was already extremely wealthy before taking the job as head of the foundation. The former Gates Foundation CEO took only $1 in annual compensation. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for the foundation to explain publicly the process it uses to set executive compensation?

In writing this blog post, I wanted to spread the word and encourage others to explore the GLASSPOCKETS site. And I also wanted to find out what readers of NCRP’s blog think. Will the site put additional pressure on foundations to adopt some of these practices? If so, why – and is that a good thing? If not, why not?

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

Photo credit: Suat Eman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Annual Reports – Tell Us How You Want It!

2010-02-05T13:31:00.005-05:00

By Yna C. Moore

Once upon a time, putting together annual reports was pretty straightforward: write about accomplishments and major developments from the past year, print and send them out to a mailing list and hope they get read.

But with the proliferation of new digital media and the rising cost of producing and mailing hard copies, the process isn’t quite as ”simple” anymore. Now, it also involves wrestling with the question: What format should we use?

For most organizations, annual reports serve multiple purposes and have helped with transparency in the charitable sector. But like any other “product,” they’re only as good as their reach and consumption by their intended audiences.

For nonprofits, institutional grantmakers are among the primary target audiences of annual reports, which take considerable time and resources to produce. So the question is – Which format would most likely get read or viewed by foundation staff?

I posed this very question in comments on the Communications Network blog. Blog moderator and head of the network Bruce Trachtenberg’s answer was, we don’t know.

So here’s my (unscientific) attempt at finding out. Why? Many nonprofits are run by overworked staffers wearing multiple hats trying to get as much done with as little budget as possible. Giving these groups a better sense of trends and preferences will help them decide on the most efficient, effective and cost-conscious way to communicate with one of their most important audiences – their funding partners in the civic sector.

I hope that someone or some organization will take on a larger, more “scientific” attempt at gathering, analyzing and sharing the data. It could spell the difference between an annual report that is read or tossed to the bin and never seen.

For now, I invite foundation staffers who read this post to take the poll, or share your thoughts in comments. Thank you!

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

Which type(s) of annual reports from grantees would you likely read/view?(survey software)

A People's loss in the United States: Howard Zinn, historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87

2010-01-29T12:20:00.007-05:00

A People's loss in the United States: Howard Zinn, historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87

On Wednesday, as the nation rightly focused on the President’s first State of the Union address, we lost a revolutionary thinker with the passing of political activist and historian Howard Zinn. Probably most known for his seminal A People’s History of the United States, Zinn’s contributions are too great for this post to do any justice to. That said, the Boston Globe published a great piece, which includes many of the sentiments that I share. Sometimes, things just can’t be said better than others have. So in the words of the Globe staff, Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck, here are my views on the significance of his loss.

From the Globe: “For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. ’A People’s History of the United States‘ (1980), his best-known book, had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and union organizers of the 1930s.”

My addition: If you’ve never read this book PLEASE GO OUT AND GET A COPY NOW! When we think of our country, many of us do so in the ways that the writers state. But remember, it was community organizing and advocacy that led to: a) our freedom from the Empire; b) the abolition of slavery; and c) the women’s rights movement. When everyday citizens are active, we make change happen. When we work together as a community, our impact is even greater. And if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that we’ve been documenting the high “return on investment” of funding directed towards advocacy, organizing and civic engagement under our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.

From Noam Chomsky: “Dr. Zinn's writings "simply changed perspective and understanding for a whole generation. He opened up approaches to history that were novel and highly significant. Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement."

My addition: Chomsky and Zinn have forever changed my perspective on myriad issues. Ranging from the intellectually “jargon-esque” writings to the Boston University strike referenced in the Globe article, Zinn always will be of significant influence on the way I think and act. Academia is all well and good and I love the epistemological. But when we talk basic civil and human rights grounded in that “jargon,” that’s what really gets me fired up! Not only is there power in numbers, but there is always hope for a better tomorrow when we’re civically engaged and active.

From Ben Affleck: “"He taught me how valuable – how necessary – dissent was to democracy and to America itself. He taught that history was made by the everyman, not the elites. "
My addition: Now we’re really talking! Without dissent, there is no democracy and vice versa. All points of view are equally valid and everyone’s voice counts. If we agreed on everything, would we ever change existing structures and institutions that might be unjust? Our first amendment rights may be guaranteed by the Constitution but they’re an essential piece of how we treat each other. (And PLEASE feel free to disagree with anything here – seriously, that is what the comments are for and I’d love to engage in some constructive dialogue). As I noted in Values chapter of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best, the role of dissent is an essential component of policy advocacy and leads to a more just and inclusive society in which all of us are better off.

In Dr. Zinn’s own words: "From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble."

Hm … how does one add to the man himself?! Well, all I can say is this: Education is necessary, but not sufficient. It’s the second piece of acting on that huge knowledge base whenever we see injustice anywhere which, from my perspective, is one of the primary purposes of being educated. As my mentor john powell points out to me sometimes, in Jefferson’s mind, one wasn’t a citizen of this country simply by virtue of being born here. One had to earn that citizenship and the means to earning it was an education.

So, why education? Because, as Dr. Zinn said, education prepares us to speak out and ACT out against inequity. And if you watched the SOTU last night, you couldn’t have missed the emphasis on education reform and this administration’s commitment to ensuring high-quality education for our country’s children and youth. It’s time to take a big step back from our current system and really see what works and what doesn’t and how, working together, the civic sector can complement federal and state level government work like the “Race to the Top fund” to level the playing field in education. (Check out this excellent article written by NCRP board member Pete Manzo on this issue).

As we celebrate the many successes and acknowledge the challenges we still confront after one year of the Obama administration’s being in office, I hope each of us will take the time to reflect on what Zinn’s passing really means for us as a country. What does his work mean for us today? Will we find common cause and work together to help our country emerge stronger and better from the critical crossroads we confront? I sure hope we will and though my heart may be heavy from the loss of such an influential and brilliant man, my spirits are lifted when I think of the work he’s made possible and the millions of lives he’s touched in so many ways. Thank you for everything Dr. Zinn – I’ll certainly never forget you.

Niki Jagpal,
Research & Policy Director

No Strings Attached: Giving Well in Haiti

2010-01-29T10:00:00.002-05:00

By Kevin Laskowski

More than $528 million have been raised for Haiti relief in the aftermath of a catastrophic earthquake that killed as many as 200,000 people and left 1.5 million without homes. As people texted donations, downloaded music, and contributed to relief efforts, there was no shortage of good advice and principles for giving effectively:

Give cash: Stephanie Strom of the New York Times put it succinctly, “Don’t send shoes, send money. Don’t send baby formula, send money. Don’t send old coats, send money.” MSNBC intoned, “From volunteer medical teams who show up uninvited, to stateside donors who ship boxes of unusable household goods, misdirected compassion can actually tax scarce resources, costing time, money, energy — and lives, experts say.”

Give to local groups with significant experience on the ground: For instance, like many others, GiveWell recommended Partners in Health (PIH), citing “its significant local experience and capacity in Haiti.” After all, PIH got its start serving the poorest regions in Haiti in 1987. It has been working there ever since and provides medical care to poor communities in 12 countries around the world.

Give general operating support: In his perhaps misleadingly titled piece, “Don’t give money to Haiti,” Felix Salmon argued against earmarking your donations for Haiti. He pointed out that “the Red Cross has still only spent 83% of its $3.21 billion tsunami budget — which means that it has over half a billion dollars left to spend.” That’s right: the Red Cross alone could match the combined millions that have been donated for Haitian relief right now, but it can’t use any of that money in Haiti because of donor restrictions. Flexible dollars not only help groups respond to disasters quickly but help prepare them for the next.

Give over the long-term: Under an equally contrarian headline, “Don’t Give Money To Haiti Now,” Perla Ni contended that “donors need to stagger their funding and guarantee it over many years, instead of sending the money all at once.” Donations for Haiti relief are already beginning to slow despite the fact that relief efforts will likely cost $3 billion and reconstruction will certainly take years. People want to make sure that the resources for rebuilding are there long after the Hope For Haiti Now relief album disappears from the charts.

In sum, give, and, when you do, give flexible, long-term support to local groups (or, at least, groups as close to the people you’re trying to help as possible). It’s great advice—and not just for Haiti.

In following news of this disaster and our response, the hallmark of modern foundation philanthropy—the annually renewed (maybe) project grant with its restrictions and requirements—is absolutely nowhere to be found. In its place, I find all the best advice pointing in the opposite direction, and a responsive public texting millions for a country in crisis. Certainly, that’s partly because grantmaking takes time, but I think it’s also because, on some level, we understand that if we really want impact when the stakes are high and need is great, this is what we ought to do.

I’m all for giving thoughtfully, strategically, even catalytically. However, times such as these remind me that the constraints we often put on our dollars in the name of effectiveness can be luxuries others can’t afford and we can do without. As foundations contemplate their responses to this crisis, I’m hoping they take that lesson to heart—both in this hemisphere’s poorest nation and around the world.

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

Catalytic Philanthropy: Trend or Force for Social Change?

2010-01-28T10:52:00.006-05:00

By Julia Craig

A print ad from the Montana Meth Project

Those working in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors may share my feeling that at times we are swimming in jargon that gets used to the brink of meaninglessness: “strategic” philanthropy, nonprofit “effectiveness,” “impact,” “challenges and opportunities,” and so on. So when I read Mark Kramer’s article in the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) titled “Catalytic Philanthropy,” I admit I was skeptical. Was this just a new buzzword or something truly innovative?

In his article, Kramer profiled Tom Siebel, who started the Montana Meth Project after observing the detrimental effects of methamphetamine on his community. Siebel’s approach to the problem did not follow the traditional grantor-identifies-appropriate-grantee story arc. He engaged fully in the project and took responsibility for its success. Under the project, Siebel drew on existing research, conducted original research, and gathered experts from around the world to focus on making meth use socially unacceptable in Montana. You can view the 30 second commercials developed as part of the media strategy on the project’s website. (Fair warning: they’re disturbing, but that’s the point.)

The Meth Project’s success provides, perhaps, a partial answer to my question about the potential of catalytic philanthropy: according to Siebel, two years after its launch in Montana, adult meth use declined by 72% and meth-related crime decreased 62%. The Meth Project is now a national meth use prevention campaign, utilizing media, public policy advocacy, and community outreach.

On January 26, NCRP field associate Kevin Laskowski and I attended an SSIR webinar discussing the article and its implications for the philanthropic sector. The webinar included Mark Kramer and Tom Siebel, as well as Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector. Kramer explained the theory behind “catalytic philanthropy” and that one of the primary distinctions of this approach is that the donor is responsible for success, rather than the grantee. A catalytic philanthropist:

Takes responsibility for achieving results
Mobilizes a campaign for change
Uses all available tools and resources, including mission investing, policy advocacy, litigation and lobbying
Builds actionable knowledge, using that information to inform action and to influence others’ actions.

I was struck by Diana Aviv’s commentary on catalytic philanthropy; she posited that what Kramer really identified in the Meth Project was not so much the role of the philanthropist but the role of a dedicated leader willing to take the systemic approach. She pointed to Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone and Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health as examples of such leaders. Dr. Farmer’s work to bring healthcare as a force for social change began in Haiti and has expanded globally to Africa, South America and Russia. Both these leaders take responsibility for the success of their organizations, utilize all available resources – including advocacy and organizing – and involve the communities they serve in action.

So is catalytic philanthropy a new model for foundation leadership, or is it a tried and true strategy that is just now being recognized as a potential model for social change? I found it interesting that Siebel balked at being identified as a model; he was adamant that the Meth Project worked in Montana, but shied away from offering advice to other philanthropists or suggesting that they should follow suit. But he did note that the Meth Project was not the work of a “lone maverick;” rather, the project pulled together a range of people, from global experts to local teen focus groups, to address the problem.

Did you attend the webinar? Even if you didn’t, what is your reaction to the article and to the discussion of what catalytic philanthropy really means? Let us know in the comments!

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.

Transforming Race: Crisis and Opportunity in the Age of Obama

2010-01-26T09:45:00.004-05:00

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.

Organizing against Obesity

2010-01-21T17:56:00.003-05:00

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).

New Report Demonstrates Power of "Horizontal Giving"

2010-01-14T15:08:00.003-05:00

By Julia Craig

The Center for Participatory Change (CPC) in Western North Carolina released recently Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities, a report documenting “horizontal giving” in western North Carolina. CPC was part of NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project North Carolina sample.

“Horizontal giving” is the mutual non-monetary sharing that occurs among friends, family and community members. CPC replicated a methodology used in South Africa to conduct 12 focus groups with 122 people across Western N.C., which included white, African American, Hmong, Cherokee, and Latino community members. The report identified 13 categories of giving, including concrete resources such as labor or food and less tangibles such as emotional support or support around experiences with racism. The report weaves anonymous quotations from the focus groups in with analysis of the findings.

CPC found that horizontal giving was more important among participants than vertical giving, which they define as traditional giving to and from institutions). Community members described the significant benefits they felt in improved quality of life they received from horizontal contributions. In the executive summary, CPC highlighted specifically the way racism and communal support for members who experienced racism was discussed by the groups: “systematic and individual racism is a powerful force in the lives of people of color … people need to come together to support one another around the racism that they experience, and … this mutual support around racism is an important form of giving.”

So, as CPC asked in its summary of the report, what do these findings on horizontal giving in low-wealth communities mean for grassroots social change organizations?

For one thing, the focus groups rarely talked about the nonprofit sector. There was no negative perception of nonprofits, but the participants primarily valued social networks and churches as communities (rather than as social service providers) and sources of support. CPC acknowledged that as a community organizing support nonprofit, it should better account for how the structures of mutual support within a community interact with more formal grassroots work. Craig White of CPC said:

“For CPC, we took a hard look at the findings from our study, and reviewed our work to be sure that we weren't doing anything to undercut or compromise the natural systems of giving that already exist in each community. We realized that the relationships that form in grassroots groups are often the type of connections that allow people to help each other with emotional support, housing, caregiving, transportation, and all the other forms of informal giving. Even more than before, we now try to make sure that a grassroots group isn't just spending time on work and projects and business, but that there's lots of time for conversation, having fun, and celebrating - because the relationships formed there may have just as big an impact as the group's official projects do.”

For traditional philanthropy, one lesson is similar to the conclusion CPC drew for its own work: funders should take the time to learn about and understand pre-existing networks of support and organic networks of horizontal giving. CPC wrote that institutions focused on giving can better account for the role that horizontal giving plays in lower-income communities when addressing poverty and other systemic problems.

You can download the full report for free on the CPC website, or read Craig White’s article in the current issue of Grassroots Fundraising Journal.

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

Recession Hits Rural Elderly Hard - What can Philanthropy Do?

2009-12-18T13:46:00.004-05:00

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).

Giving Life to Democracy

2009-12-03T11:36:00.002-05:00

By Kevin Laskowski

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

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

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

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

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

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

Develop a theory of change.
Match your goals to your resources.
Use all your resources.
Know your potential grantees.
Amplify grantee voices.
Evaluate work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding Opportunity in Crisis: Fund for our Economic Future of Northeast Ohio

2009-11-24T12:09:00.003-05:00

by Julia Craig

Last week, NCRP Executive Director Aaron Dorfman, Senior Research Associate Lisa Ranghelli and I attended the 38th Annual ARNOVA conference in Cleveland, Ohio. During the opening plenary on Thursday evening, David Abbott, CEO of the George Gund Foundation and chairman of the Fund for our Economic Future of Northeast Ohio, told the inspiring story of the Fund’s work collaborating with nonprofit and foundation partners to improve economic opportunity in the Cleveland region.

Together, the Fund’s nearly 70 members raised more than $60 million to address the structural economic problems in particularly hard-hit post-industrial northeast Ohio. Each member contributing more than $100,000 over three years has one vote in the decision-making process, a governance structure that means, as Abbott noted, no member always gets its way, which is a novel concept for many foundations. The Fund came about because a number of foundations wanted to better address the crisis nonprofits were facing and effectively respond to their partners’ needs.

Abbott gave a few examples of how this has played out, such as by helping nonprofits respond to new federal funding opportunities and brokering collaboration among nonprofits in the human services field. But, he said, this is not the real opportunity for funders. “To me, the real opportunity is to marshal our philanthropic resources to make a difference in the underlying conditions that put nonprofits and our communities in peril. That is especially true in the older industrial communities of America where the market forces that have stripped us of much of our capacity have not recovered… because the issues are deep-seated and structural.”

The Fund has taken a regional approach to the problem and focused on increasing northeast Ohio’s relevance in the global economy. The Fund has leveraged its investments in start-up ventures with nonprofit partners into greater venture capital for high-growth companies. The Fund has even drawn attention to the ways in which local government structure contributes to economic costs, prompting citizen involvement in advocacy to change decision-making structures.

Abbott told the story of a highly successful philanthropic collaboration, but he also recognized the precariousness of the partnership. Foundations are not used to giving up their individual power to collective will, and as Abbott said, “The individual response to need makes us feel good – especially if we ignore the inadequacy of that response.”

Abbott recognized that current members of the fund may lose interest and it may lose its ability to respond to the economic structural problems of the region in a meaningful way. He also noted that philanthropists tend to be overly optimistic about what they are achieving because they usually operate in a world of “isolation and adulation” that doesn’t always reflect reality. Collaboration, then, is a risk: it involves stepping out of that bubble and potentially “foregoing effusive praise.” This is an important message for funders to hear and understand.

The Fund represents something unique in philanthropy, as does Abbott’s perspective as a foundation leader. He recognized the temptations of individual action and the challenges of taking the long view. He also acknowledged that some have questioned whether it is the role of private philanthropy to make investments in economic development and structural change, but pointed out that one of the main reasons for the Fund’s genesis was that its members saw a void. Abbott ended his talk on an upbeat note, hoping that other regions will see the success of the Fund and develop their own meaningful funder collaborations. His message of the urgency for collective action was one that resonates with NCRP’s values.

Aaron, Lisa and I were excited to hear a philanthropic leader expressing these ideas. What do you think? If you were at ARNOVA, what did you take away from Abbott’s speech? Are foundations doing enough to address the problems of the recession? Does the Fund for our Economic Future represent a viable solution for other regions? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.

Growing Up Too Fast?

2009-11-23T08:30:00.000-05:00

By Kevin Laskowski

Philanthropy has exploded in the past two decades. There are more foundations, funds, ways to give, and dollars being given than ever before, but is the sector growing too fast?

A new survey of 185 family foundations from the National Center for Family Philanthropy reveals a “troubling” statistic:

Only about half of all responding foundations (53 percent) have [a conflict-of-interest policy]. Having such a policy indicates the board has discussed the issue and has awareness and explicit expectations of board members regarding potential conflicts of interest. Twenty-six percent reported having a written code of ethics, and only 18 percent have a formal process to review legal compliance issues. Forty-six percent of the foundations said they currently do not have any of these (see Figure 4). (emphasis added)

This finding is an important barometer for the sector as a whole. Family foundations comprise more than half of the foundation field at large. They account for roughly half of all giving, assets, and new gifts and bequests from donors among independent foundations. According to the Foundation Center, both the number and giving of family foundations has doubled since the 1990s.

The Association of Small Foundations discovered similar statistics among its members in its 2008-2009 Foundation Operations and Management Report. In that survey, 58 percent of respondents reported having a conflict of interest policy.

Looking at this new survey from NCFP, it seems that a significant number of family foundations take their obligations to the public trust seriously. One way that foundations and other charitable organizations can signal that they take seriously the need for accountability and transparency in their operations is to adopt and implement policies that support ethical behavior. These include policies on conflict of interest, whistleblowers, and executive compensation. However, the number of foundations that haven’t adopted these hallmarks of well-governed organizations is of concern, especially when conflict of interest policies and codes of ethics are so readily available.

Despite the best efforts of the field’s grantmaker associations, it would seem that many philanthropies just don’t know that this information is available or how important these policies are. NCFP surveyed a random sample of family foundations—not its members or the more accessible members of regional or national associations. Eighty-four percent of respondents were members of the donor family, and few respondents reported board members attending conferences and making use of association events and resources.

NCFP President Virginia Esposito contends that, since family members volunteered this information, it’s unlikely that the lack of certain policies is an intentional oversight.

“Given how many families took the time to fill this out with care and candor, we don’t believe that this is anything other than a lack of awareness about what these policies are and how they can enhance grantmaking process,” she says. “It’s more the product of a field that has grown so fast it has outpaced our ability to regulate or socialize it.”

Read more about ways that foundations can be more accountable and transparent in Chapter 3 of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best.

What do you think? Given how the field of family philanthropy has grown so large, so quickly in recent years, what can be done to spread the word regarding the need to adopt policies and practices that promote ethical behavior within organizations?

In a recent survey, only about half of family foundation respondents reported having a conflict-of-interest policy. Does this result surprise you?(trends)

Kevin Laskowski is a Field Associate with the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Kevin previously served as Program Coordinator at the National Center for Family Philanthropy and assisted in developing the survey mentioned here.

Flash bulbs flood their subjects with light, reveal the necessary detail

2009-11-17T16:27:00.007-05:00

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.

Check out a fantastic new racial equity resource from Funders for LGBTQ Issues!

2009-11-16T16:29:00.001-05:00

I’m delighted to share a great new resource from Funders for LGBTQ Issues. The racial equity toolkit provides funders with an important lens to consider when making grants for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning communities. It demonstrates a deep understanding of the intersections and nuance of the many dimensions involved in grantmaking of any kind. And as RaceWire points on out, while the toolkit was designed specifically for LGBTQ grantmaking, any social justice organization that challenges existing power structures and norms can find tons of benefits and resources in this work.

I blogged about the Woods Fund decision to explicitly adopt a racial equity lens in their grantmaking back in September and it’s great to see so much similar work being done around this important issue across the sector.

A big shout out to Funders for LGBTQ Issues for making this important contribution to the field!!!

Niki Jagpal

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

Philanthropy for What (Or Who)?

2009-11-06T10:14:00.006-05:00

by Yna C. Moore

Many in the philanthropy world is in the midst of some soul searching – What is philanthropy? What is the role of philanthropy in the world today? How do foundations – of all shapes and sizes - fit in the complex world that makes up the charitable sector? Are there things we can do better? If so, what does “better” look like?

In the article “Philanthropy’s Commitment to the Common Good” published in Responsive Philanthropy, Alison Goldberg, who coordinates Wealth for the Common Good, talks about the dual purpose of private philanthropy – to promote the common good and to serve the interests of wealthy families. Wealth for the Common Good is a network of wealthy individuals and business leaders who support policies that promote economic equity and fair taxes.

She writes, “As long as private philanthropy exists, it’s likely there will be a need to accommodate the interests of donors and their descendents and strike a balance between personal priorities and the common good. But right now, that balance is skewed in the wrong direction.”

She raises three interesting points:

The higher the taxes on high-income and wealthy families, the more money is given to foundations
Philanthropy can’t be a substitute for government to provide critical services, but government rely on income and taxes to generate the money to support these efforts.
Our current tax system may appear progressive, but it’s really not. Tax cuts for the wealthy from the past 30 years has shifted the burden to wage earners.

Read Alison’s full article and other postings on philanthropy’s role in society.

Tell us what you think:

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

Philanthropy's Role in Society: Promoting the Common Good

2009-10-29T16:16:00.002-04:00

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.

Stories of Making Positive Change Happen in our Communities

2009-10-27T11:04:00.003-04:00

by Yna C. Moore

With the help and support of the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, Headwaters Foundation for Justice and Main Street Project, 10 of the 15 organizations in Minnesota featured in our latest Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities report put together their own multimedia presentations that highlight their advocacy, organizing and civic engagement efforts.

These organizations include:

These organizations work on various critical issues faced by Minnesotans, such as transportation equity, civil rights and health care.

We invite you to view their stories, meet those on the frontlines of making positive change happen in our communities and be inspired!

Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Minnesota by Gita Gulati-Partee and Lisa Ranghelli documents how 15 local organizations and their allies leveraged foundation support to bring in $138 dollars in equivalent benefits for every dollar invested in policy engagement efforts.

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

M4M Finds Foundations Stepping Up Commitment to Mission Investment

2009-10-23T11:09:00.001-04:00

by Julia Craig

More for Mission (M4M) recently conducted a survey to determine the levels at which its members designated assets for mission investing. And there’s great news: the 39 surveyed M4M members reported that foundations currently engaged in mission investing plan to significantly expand their portfolios over the next two years. M4M defines mission investing as including both program-related investments (generally below market rate investments serving a programmatic purpose), and market-rate investments (usually provide market-rate returns as part of a social mission).

At the end of 2008, respondents had 4.7 percent of their assets in mission investments. By the end of 2009, respondents expected to have 6.9 percent of their assets in mission investments, growing to 23 percent by the end of 2011. This would be an impressive almost-four-fold increase in assets for mission investing among respondents over the course of two years!

When asked about their motivation for participating in mission investing, majority of respondents named responsibility and alignment of identity: “Foundations noted that they were essentially motivated by a desire to advance institutional responsibility – that investors have a responsibility to hold institutions accountable for their social and environmental impact. Others noted that they saw mission investing as a way to reflect the values and mission of the foundation rather than contradict them.”

In Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best, the section on commitment calls on grantmakers to invest at least 25 percent of its assets in ways that support its mission. This includes program-related investments, market-rate mission investments, shareholder activism, and other strategies to leverage the massive capital foundations hold in their non-grantmaking coffers.

Kudos to those foundations participating in More for Mission for committing a significant proportion of their assets for mission investing and leading by example.

Do you think mission investing is an effective strategy for foundations seeking to leverage their assets to achieve impact beyond grantmaking? If so, what would spur more foundations to sign on to the M4M campaign? Let us know what you think in the comments.

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

Recruiting Community Organizers: Looking Beyond the Obama Effect

2009-10-21T10:13:00.003-04:00

By Ben MacConnell

Seize the day! That seems to have been the rally cry in community organizing circles ever since the former Chicago organizer – now president and Nobel laureate – Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in the summer of 2008.

Having a former organizer in the White House does seem to have presented a unique opportunity for the field of community organizing. In April, the New York Times printed an article (in their fashion section no less) suggesting that President Obama has made community organizing “cool again.” College professors have reported that previously obscure classes on community organizing are now seeing record enrollments. Last year, during the Direct Action and Research Training Center's (DART) annual recruitment drive for the DART Organizers Institute, recruiters collected over 2,000 resumes and 900 applicants for only 17 available positions. So something seems to be happening.

But seizing the day can take many forms. When Sarah Palin mocked President Obama’s organizing experience at the Republican national convention, community organizers across the country launched websites, wrote blogs and printed bumper stickers to defend the profession. After the inauguration, several foundations pieced together money – even with the market crash – to encourage activities that would capitalize on this moment in history. When President Obama announced his plans to reform healthcare, some community organizations that have historically focused their efforts locally, began sending staff to the beltway to work at the national level.

Business writer, Jim Collins, is an unusual author to cite for an article about community organizing. But then again, Collins has researched how to build great companies that last, and any recipe for enduring greatness ought to be understood by disciplined organizers. Collins talks a great deal about companies that spend too much energy telling the time of the day and not enough energy building clocks. Martin Luther King, Jr. made a similar observation when describing churches during the civil rights movement. He said churches had acted more like thermometers recording the temperature of the day, rather than thermostats that set the level of heat.

These lessons seem relevant to this “seize the moment” phenomenon that’s currently all the rage. It suggests that instead of focusing on telling the time with the hottest issue campaigns, organizing technology or slogans, the field of community organizing needs to take this opportunity to build good clocks. To do this, community organizing needs to do what any industry does with a long-term interest on impacting the world – it draws in, uses and retains great talent. Notably, most applicants to the DART Organizers Institute said that their interest in organizing didn’t stem from President Obama’s past life as an organizer, but from someone they know and respect telling them about this line of work. So while President Obama’s past has raised awareness, the onus is still on organizers and their allies to do the outreach and cultivation necessary to bring talented people into this line of work.

Every year or two a survey or report is issued that highlights the severe need for more professional organizers to sustain a movement. In 1998, the Peace Development Fund reported that community organizations faced, “survival issues hampering efficiency and effectiveness, including personnel issues such as high turnover, the scarcity of trained organizers, and burnout. …” After surveying 100 local faith-based community organizers, Interfaith Funders discovered in 2001that, “The factor most consistently cited by respondents as limiting the growth of their work is the recruitment of talented organizers.” Andrew Mott, the former Director of the Center for Community Change, wrote in his 2006 report compiled for Community Catalyst, “We have invested too little in developing sufficient numbers of people with the vision, breadth of knowledge, commitment and skills needed to tackle the issues, which low-income communities and people of color face in America today.” All of these reports and others like them have drawn the same conclusion – the ability to build strong organizations committed to a shift in power and reversing injustice rests on the capacity to develop great community organizers.

For all of these reasons, we – organizers and funders alike - ought not ask how to seize the day; we ought to ask how to seize a generation.

Ben MacConnell is Director of the DART Organizers Institute, a field school for new professional community organizers that will be celebrating its tenth year in 2010. For more details, check out their latest video.

Editor’s note: In a couple of months, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy will be marking the first anniversary of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impact of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement, a series of reports that highlights the positive impact that communities have seen through funder-supported nonprofit policy engagement. This posting by guest contributor Ben MacConnell brings home a basic resource requirement for nonprofit advocacy groups – or any organization - to have a chance at success.