Funding Community Organizing, Changing Lives · 2019-10-31 · Funding Community Organizing, Changing Lives By Christine A. W. Doby Members of the Interfaith Federation of Northwest

Since its beginning in1926, grantmaking at theCharles Stewart MottFoundation has focusedon the well-being of com-munities. While much ofthe earliest grantmakingwas done through thelocal school system, at thecore of it was the beliefthat individuals, families,neighborhoods, schools,businesses, nonprofit org-anizations and govern-ment each have criticalroles and responsibilitiesin creating effective, func-tional communities.The Mott Foundation first formally funded community

organizing in the 1970s. Since that time, its approach hasevolved to address changing times and opportunities. Over

the past three decades, theMott Foundation has beenviewed as a national phil-anthropic leader, embrac-ing community organizingas a central strategy foralleviating poverty andpromoting civic engage-ment.At its best, community

organizing is a transform-ing experience. Throughstrategic issue selection,research and direct action,people engage in publiclife and redefine their rela-tionships to each otherand to those in positions of

power. In the process, they build democratically con-trolled community institutions that can address complexproblems, represent the will (continued on page 13)

IN THIS EDITION

Funding Community Organizing, Changing Lives 1Spotlight: Gara LaMarche — Atlantic President and CEO Talks About Supporting Advocacy, General Support 2Best and Worst of the COF Summit 6Is Leadership Denial Feeding the Charitable Sector Crisis? 10

THE NCRP QUARTERLY | SUMMER 2008

Funding Community Organizing,Changing LivesBy Christine A. W. Doby

Members of the Interfaith Federation of Northwest Indiana. The Federationreceived a general support grant from the Mott Foundation, and is a member ofthe Gamaliel Foundation, an international community organizing network and long-time Mott grantee.

Phot

o:Ri

ckSm

ith,

Rick

’sPh

otog

raph

y,Ro

ches

terH

ills,

Mic

higa

n

“It seems to me that every person, always, is in a kind of informal partnership with his community. His own success isdependent to a large degree on that community, and the community, after all, is the sum total of the individuals whomake it up. The institutions of a community, in turn, are the means by which those individuals express their faith, theirideals and their concern for fellow men .... We recognize that our obligation to fellow men does not stop at the bound-aries of the community. In an even larger sense, every man is in partnership with the rest of the human race in the eter-nal conquest which we call civilization.”

— Charles Stewart Mott (1875–1973)

Responsive Philanthropy is thequarterly newsletter of the NationalCommittee for Responsive Philanthropy

2008, Issue No. 3Yearly subscription: $25(free to members)ISBN: 1065-0008

NCRP STAFF

Meredith Brodbeck Communications/Development AssistantJulia Craig Program AssistantAaron Dorfman Executive DirectorKevin Faria Development DirectorNiki Jagpal Research DirectorMelissa Johnson Field DirectorAnna Kristina (“Yna”) C. Moore Communications DirectorLisa Ranghelli Senior Research Associate

© 2008 National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy2001 S Street, NW, Ste. 620, Washington, DC 20009 • Phone 202.387.9177 • Fax 202.332.5084 • E-mail: [email protected]

In May 2008, The Atlantic Philan-thropies released the first of AtlanticReports that makes the case forfoundation support for advocacyinitiatives. The series of reports isbased on lessons learned from morethan two decades worth of grant-making for social change in the U.S.and abroad.NCRP interviewed by e-mail The

Atlantic Philanthropies’ president andCEO Gara LaMarche about thereport, the various tools for support-ing advocacy, and the role of multi-year general operating support. Mr.LaMarche joined NCRP’s board ofdirectors in May 2008.

NCRP: Why was it important for The AtlanticPhilanthropies to do this report on foundations’ supportfor advocacy, “Why Supporting Advocacy Makes Sensefor Foundations”?

Gara LaMarche: There are a lot of myths about fund-ing advocacy and, in general, there is a culture ofover-cautiousness in philanthropy, which has been adeterrent. We wanted to show that there are manyexamples, not primarily from Atlantic, about whyadvocacy grantmaking is important and how it canwork to advance almost any foundation’s statedgoals. I am very pleased with the report, though werealize it breaks very little substantive ground not

already plowed by the Alliance forJustice and other groups. Webelieved it was important to givethis issue the voice and the impri-matur of a large foundation, andthat’s why we selected it as thefirst topic in our new publicationsseries, Atlantic Reports.

NCRP: The report offers several differ-ent options for funders interested insupporting advocacy, includingresearch, mobilization, communityorganizing, litigation and other strate-gies. Why was it important to spellout these various tools for grantmak-ers, and which strategies do you thinkare most in need of additional invest-ment in the United States?

GL: In the introduction to the report, we emphasize thatwe are “particularly supportive of advocacy by the peo-ple most affected by policies that need to be changed.”So we’re saying that, not surprisingly, foundations—which almost always are mainstream if not conservativeinstitutions—do not invest often enough in bottom-upstrategies for change. In our view, because they involveempowerment and the wisdom of those closest to theground, these strategies can be the most enduring—or, touse a foundation-y kind of word, sustainable—change.

NCRP: In your experience at the Open Society Instituteand now with The Atlantic Philanthropies, what chal-

Gara LaMarcheAtlantic President and CEO Talks About Supporting Advocacy,General Support

S P O T L I G H T

Gara LaMarche

Responsive Philanthropy Summer 2008 3

lenges have you encountered with advocacy grantmak-ing and how have you overcome these challenges?

GL: Occasionally, this kind of funding can be controver-sial, and some trustees are not too wild about that.More often, foundation staff are overprotective oftrustees who, I have found in both OSI and Atlantic, canbe strong allies if you ask them. More recently, fundingof advocacy has encountered, in addition to the usualsources of hesitation, the metrics movement—that is,you have to show that you can measure progress andimpact. I find this a bit strange because public policyoften has clearer metrics than many other kinds of foun-dation funding; if you ask the right-wing foundationshow they evaluated their work, almost without excep-tion, they will say they didn’t think too much about it.They looked in the newspaper or on television and sawmany signs of how theywere changing society. But Ialso believe that progressivesupporters of advocacy haveto engage these very realconcerns, and be preparedto talk the language of meas-urement and accountability.On this issue, the Alliancefor Justice has done somegood work and Atlantic is in a good position to takeleadership, because we are one of the foundations mostidentified with both meaningful evaluation and withaggressive support for advocacy.

NCRP: How do you see the trend going with regard tofoundations providing more support for advocacy?

GL: More and more are getting into it, and feeling com-fortable with it, because they realize that you don’t haveas much bang for the buck if you don’t have an advoca-cy strategy. I have been extremely heartened by theresponse to this publication, which has been enor-mous—many kudos from nonprofits and other founda-tions, and hundreds of requests for additional copies.That tells me something.

NCRP: How has the foundation’s decision to spend downby 2020 affected the kinds of issues you support and thekinds of strategies you use to address these issues?

GL: To paraphrase Mark Twain, our impending demiseconcentrates the mind quite powerfully. We are morefocused on impact and legacy than a perpetual foun-dation generally needs to be and, among other things,that means we want the issues and organizations wesupport to stick around after we’re gone. That arguesnot only for strengthening institutions to engage inpolicy change, but also working for some of the poli-cy changes themselves. Right now, for us, key areas ofU.S. policy reform include comprehensive immigra-tion reform and the restoration of civil liberties in thepost-Bush era.

NCRP: One of the primary reasons that many founda-tions are not keen on providing multiyear and coreoperating support—two approaches that you men-tioned in the report as key tools in supporting nonprof-

it advocacy—is the issue of immediate measurableimpact. Given The Atlantic Philanthropies’ extensiveexperience with these types of support, how wouldyou address this concern and possibly change theirminds about the need for and desirability of thesekinds of grantmaking?

GL: Many foundations grasp very well why they needto strengthen and sustain key institutions to do theirjob not just now, but a century from now, whether it’sa museum, a hospital, a symphony orchestra or a uni-versity. Why should social change and social justiceorganizations be viewed any differently? The ACLU,and many of its key donors, for example, understandthis, which is why that organization has been readyand available to meet the civil liberties challenges ofthe times, from the Red Scares of the 1920s to theattacks on immigrants nearly 100 years later. We can’tanticipate what will be the challenges facing racial jus-tice, or environmental, or lesbian and gay, or youth

We are more focused on impact and legacy than a perpetual

foundation generally needs to be and, among other things,

that means we want the issues and organizations we support

to stick around after we’re gone.

organizations 30 years from now,but we can try to identify the mosteffective organizations with a trackrecord and a plan for the future andgive them the support and the toolsthey need to endure and thrive.

NCRP: How does The AtlanticPhilanthropies know that its grant-making is making a difference?What does your evaluation processlook like?

GL: We’re one of a relatively smallnumber of foundations with an in-house staff and budget devoted towhat we call “Strategic Learning andEvaluation.” In essence, we strive tomake evaluation holistic, putting theprogram officer at the center of the process and alsoadding the benefits of a team from our finance, commu-nications, SLAE and other teams. This interdisciplinaryapproach to grantmaking is distinctive—I can say thiswithout indulging in self-regard because it was createdbefore I got here—and worth studying and replicating.Many things go into our learning process, of which whatwe usually call “evaluation” is but one part.At Atlantic, there are three main ways we go about

this. First, with a number of Atlantic’s direct servicegrantees, we work with the grantee to combine aninternal evaluation system focused on quality with anexternal evaluation focused on effectiveness. A sec-ond evaluation approach is to use an “embedded”outside evaluator—someone trusted by the granteeand the funder who stays with the initiative over aperiod of time and provides regular periodic reportsthat can affect the course of the work in real time.Case studies are a third form of evaluation, and areparticularly useful in advocacy campaigns.These three approaches do not constitute an

exhaustive list, but we believe they give us aninsightful look into the work we support and thegrantees we fund. It’s also important to note thatevaluation and learning have a special resonance forAtlantic, in no small part because we are a “spenddown” foundation. We believe it is part of our mis-sion to share learning.

NCRP: It’s 2020, and Atlantic isclosing its doors for good. How doyou envision the “state of the world”to be as a result of the billions ofdollars that Atlantic has spent insupport of efforts to improve thelives of disadvantaged and vulnera-ble adults and children, health careand human rights?

GL: I have an allergy to grandiosequestions, so I don’t want toencourage them by answering inthe terms that you have posed.Over time, you will see the with-ering away of the foundation, andif in its place there is a criticalmass of stronger organizations inthe countries in which we work—

because, though we have focused here on the U.S.,most of our funding is directed outside the U.S., tocivil society groups in South Africa, Ireland,Northern Ireland, Vietnam and elsewhere—I’ll feelwe’ve done some good.

NCRP: You recently joined the board of NCRP. Why didyou decide to give your time to this organization?

GL: Philanthropy exercises a lot of power, and likeall power, that power needs to be watched andchecked. We don’t have a bottom line like busi-nesses, constituents like politicians, or even, forthe most part, a critical and engaged press likemany sectors of society. Combined with the factthat those in the best position to have informedand critical opinions—grantees and grantseekers—tend not to express those opinions directly tothose whose support they seek, we need otherforums for scrutiny of philanthropic investmentsand initiatives. NCRP does so with a credibleresearch base and a social justice orientation.Wherever I have been in my career, I have tried tosupport NCRP financially; when I was asked toserve on the board, I decided it was right to put mymoney where my mouth is— or maybe that is theother way around!

4 Summer 2008 Responsive Philanthropy

Why Supporting Advocacy Makes Sense forFoundations (May 2008)


HELP IMPROVE PHILANTHROPY – JOIN OR RENEWWITH NCRP TODAY!

Join NCRP today as we strive to promote philanthropy that serves the public good, is responsive to peopleand communities with the least wealth and opportunity, and is held accountable to the highest standardsof integrity and openness. You’ll receive:

> Responsive Philanthropy - NCRP’s quarterly newsletter> NCRP Roundup - NCRP’s e-newsletter> Email news releases that keep you abreast of important issues in philanthropy> And most importantly, a VOICE!

JOIN ONLINE at ncrp.org OR FILL OUT AND RETURN THIS FORM!

[ ] Individual Member [ ] Organizational Member [ ] Foundation Member[ ] $50 (suggested) Other $___________ [ ] (by budget size) [ ] (by asset size)

Name

Title Organization

Address

City State Zip

E-mail Publication (free with membership)

I would like to pay by:

[ ] Check or Money Order (made out to NCRP) or [ ] Credit Card (please check one) [ ] VISA [ ] MasterCard [ ] AmEx

Card Number Exp. Date

To join NCRP, visit us online at www.ncrp.org , or complete this form and mail it with your check, money order, or credit cardinformation to: NCRP, 2001 S Street, NW, Suite 620, Washington, DC 20009. For more information, call us at (202) 387-9177,or fax (202) 332-5084. NCRP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

For organization or foundation memberships, please contact Melissa Johnson at [email protected] or (202) 387-9177 ext. 26

WEWELCOME HEARING FROM OUR READERS!

Tell us what you think about the articles in this and previous issues ofResponsive Philanthropy or send your suggestions for topics you’d like us to tacklein future issues. Send them to: Kristina Moore, NCRP, 2001 S Street NW, Suite 620,Washington, D.C. 20009. Or send them by e-mail to [email protected].


One of the most enjoyable elements of my job is attendingmany of the philanthropic conferences offered throughoutthe year. I get to have rich conversations with people whoare passionate about improving the world through philan-thropy. I learn a thing or two from keynote speakers andworkshop presenters. And I keep NCRP’s watchdoggingwork sharp by maintaining a feel for the sector.But attending conferences also is one of the most frus-

trating and disappointing elements of my job. I often leavefeeling that grantmakers have spent huge amounts ofmoney without much to show for it, and that they havereinforced status-quo philanthropic thinking that isn’t help-ful to grantees or to those with the least power and wealth.It’s a rare occurrence that I feel as though anything tangiblehas changed for the better as a result of a conference.Recently, the Council on Foundations (COF) held

the granddaddy of all philanthropic conferences. Itofficially was called “Philanthropy’s Vision: ALeadership Summit” and approximately 3,000 peopleattended. COF usually holds three separate confer-ences each year: its annual conference, a family foun-dations conference and a community foundations con-ference. This year, it combined all three into this onemega-conference. Some informally began calling it“Philanthropolooza” because, like the music/come-dy/dance/craft extravaganza Lollapalooza,1 theSummit offered a little something for everyone.Conferences of the Council on Foundations are both

a reflection of current thinking inside foundations and aforce that shapes thinking. So it’s no surprise that thisyear’s summit had both high and low points. I offer heremy thoughts about the best and the worst (in no particu-lar order) of the COF Summit.

BEST

Plenary session on human rightsThe luncheon plenary session on Monday, May 5, devot-ed to discussing human rights and philanthropy’s role inpromoting its advancement, absolutely was one of thebest moments of the Summit. Compliments are due toCOF for organizing this panel discussion and for giving ita prime slot on the agenda. As Gara LaMarche2 (who

moderated the discussion)noted, it was the first time everthat COF has held a plenarydevoted to the topic of humanrights. The panelists wereimpressive human rightsactivists: Mary Robinson (for-mer president of Ireland andformer United Nations HighCommissioner for HumanRights), Anthony Romero(executive director of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union), and Kumi Naidoo (sec-retary general and CEO of CIVICUS).Sherece West3 set the tone in her introductory

remarks when she said, “Philanthropy has an obliga-tion to provide resources to advance human rights forall. Philanthropy has a role to provide resources toorganize and advocate, convene and facilitate, putpeople in touch with one another to collaborate andbuild coalitions…”Kumi Naidoo challenged foundations to fund for the

long haul. “I think the choice for foundations is to askthe question about whether you want to make invest-ments that have quick, short-term return without it hav-ing the possibility of being sustained into the future. Ifwe are serious about making philanthropic invest-ments that would actually ensure that they are sustain-able over time, we cannot ignore the human rightsenvironment and the democratic environment that wefind,” he said. “I have jokingly said recently that there’sa very thin line between philanthropy and foolan-thropy. I want to make the point that too many programofficers are under pressure to show quick results. …The struggle for justice, the struggle for human rights,the struggle to end global poverty—these are allmarathons, they’re not sprints.”

Breakout sessions exploring community organizing andadvocacyThe 2008 Summit included more substantive breakoutsessions about community organizing, advocacy, civicengagement and social justice than any other COF

Best and Worst of the COF SummitBy Aaron Dorfman

Aaron Dorfman


gathering. NCRP is a founding member of the SocialJustice Philanthropy Collaborative,4 which produced aguide to the Summit. In the guide, we highlighted 35breakout sessions that substantively were relevant forfunders who care about issues of fairness, justice anddemocracy (shortened from an initial list of more than50 relevant sessions). Funders who prioritize giving ofthis type didn’t feel marginalized at this COF gather-ing, whereas they felt so in the past. Here’s a taste ofwhat was offered:One session, “Evaluating Advocacy Grants,” was

designed to help funders get better at evaluating out-comes for their grants supporting advocacy. This isimportant because there is great pressure to show theimpact of philanthropic giving, and some funders arefinding it challenging to show how their grants areadvancing systems change. Dave Beckwith from theNeedmor Fund, Marcia Egbert from the George GundFoundation and Sue Hoechstetter from Alliance forJustice led this session.Another session explored

how foundations can takethe lead in strengtheningdemocracy by funding civicengagement. Cris Doby ofthe Charles Stewart MottFoundation, Gerri Mannionof the Carnegie Corporationand others led the session, “Civic Engagement: How toMake Democracy Deliver.”During the final set of breakouts, the session

“Reconsidering Community Organizing: New Players,Perspectives & Possibilities” gave funders a chance toshare how funding community organizing is increasingtheir foundation’s impact. The panelists were Luz Vega-Marquis from The Marguerite Casey Foundation, KellyJames from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, LauraHogan from The California Endowment and FrankSanchez from the Needmor Fund.

Discussions about diversityAnother positive development was the way discussions ondiversity were woven throughout the agenda. COF histori-

cally has avoided talking about the importance of diversityand inclusiveness, so this year’s conference certainly was astep in the right direction. The quality of the sessions ondiversity varied greatly—some were excellent and somewere mediocre. Many attendees thought the plenary wasparticularly useful. Time will tell whether or not all this talkabout diversity actually helps the sector make real progress.

WORST

Opening plenaryThe video message from PBS NewsHour essayist RogerRosenblatt during the opening plenary was one of themost offensive and disappointing moments of theSummit. Over and over again, the video showed peopleof color as helpless victims, while most of the helpersand philanthropists shown were white. Every person ofcolor at the Summit whom I spoke with was offended bythe video, and I was, too. Didn’t someone at COF work

with Rosenblatt to produce the video? How did he cre-ate such a terrible portrayal of philanthropy?In addition to the poor choices of imagery, Rosenblatt

was way off the mark with the basic premise of his piece.He said, “America calls its seats of power ‘estates’—theexecutive, legislative and judicial branches of governmentconstituting the first three estates. And the so-called ‘fourthestate,’ the free press, has a power of its own. Philanthropyrepresents what could be called the fifth estate, wielding asmuch power for good as the other four estates combined.”Does he really believe that philanthropy wields as

much power as the other four estates combined?Philanthropic giving is dwarfed by government spending.Most philanthropists know that because their dollars areso small in comparison to resources at the disposal of the

Philanthropic giving is dwarfed by government spending.

Most philanthropists know that because their dollars are

so small in comparison to the resources at the disposal of the

government, they need to target their funds strategically.

government, they need to target their funds strategically.Rosenblatt clearly doesn’t understand the role of thephilanthropic sector in our society, and COF shouldeither have helped him produce a better essay or refusedto show the one he produced. Instead, the piece wasshown proudly on gigantic screens.And the rest of the opening plenary wasn’t much bet-

ter. The parade of international representatives cameacross as pure tokenism rather than allowing for substan-tive contribution. Remarks by Steven Gunderson, presi-

dent and CEO of COF, predictably focused on the needto share the good news about philanthropy so that thesector can avoid further regulation. “As philanthropygrows in size, in service, and, yes, in scrutiny by others,”he said, “We must recognize that either we collectivelydefine our work or we allow our detractors to frame us inways that ignore this noble journey.”

VenueThe venue also was one of the worst elements of theSummit. It was held at the newly constructed Gaylord Hotelat the newly developed National Harbor Resort, just outsideof Washington, D.C. in Prince George’s County, Md.

The entire National Harbor complex is completelyremoved from real life. No philanthropist had any risk ofencountering the poverty that plagues the residents ofour national capital region. This was a veritableDisneyland for foundation leaders. How are grantmakerssupposed to improve the impact of their work if theykeep themselves walled off from reality? At best, youcould look out the ten-story glass wall and see the faintimage of downtownWashington several miles in the dis-tance across the Potomac River.

I also find it deplorable—and almost criminal—how foundations wastemoney at these confer-ences. Grassroots nonprof-its know how to stretchevery dollar, even whenthey travel. Foundationsseem to flush the moneydown the toilet. Add up thetravel costs, room charges,conference fees and fancymeals—and I don’t evenwant to know how muchwas spent for each personin attendance. I’m not sug-gesting that foundationleaders sleep on the couch-es of colleagues the waynonprofit leaders some-times do to save money, but

perhaps there is a middle ground that doesn’t look somuch like gluttony as the Gaylord extravaganza did.

Minimal nonprofit attendanceAs with almost all foundation conferences, there wasminimal nonprofit presence. The only nonprofit leadersinvited were those speaking on panels, and they general-ly were allowed to attend only the session they were apart of. I understand that funders don’t want to get bom-barded with solicitations, but keeping grantmakers isolat-ed from nonprofit leaders isn’t healthy for the sector.There is real wisdom among nonprofit practitioners.

Foundation leaders would benefit from more interaction


Phot

o:Fo

xcha

sePh

otog

raph

y

Panelists of the human rights plenary session: (L-R) Mary Robinson (former president of Ireland and former United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights), Anthony Romero (executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union), Kumi Naidoo(secretary general and CEO of CIVICUS), and Gara LaMarche (president & CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies).


with them, and the Summit would have been better if ithad included nonprofit leaders from non-grantmakingorganizations. COF should reassess this misguided andlongstanding policy for its future conferences.

CONCLUSION

Most NCRP members who attended the COF Summitsaid it was, in sum, better than most other COF eventsthey had attended in past years. There clearly were somepositive elements and some real shifts in the right direc-tion.I began by saying that COF conferences are both a

reflection of current thinking of foundation leaders and aforce that shapes norms and expectations in the sector.Many NCRP members and allies therefore have decidedto increase their participation in COF in order to shapethe organization, its priorities, and the content of its con-ferences. NCRP’s strategy for improving the practice ofphilanthropy cannot rely heavily on COF or its gather-ings, because a trade association usually will cater to theleast common denominator in its membership. But itmakes sense for those who share NCRP’s vision for phi-lanthropy to engage with COF at some level and shapethe discussion where we can.

Aaron Dorfman is the executive director of the NationalCommittee for Responsive Philanthropy.

Video footage of many sessions from the Summit is avail-able on COF’s web site at: http://www.cof.org/Network/summit/multimedia.cfm

NOTES1. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollapalooza.2. Gara LaMarche is president and CEO of Atlantic Philanthropies and

serves on the board of directors of NCRP.3. Sherece Y. West, Ph.D., is president and CEO of the Winthrop

Rockefeller Foundation and serves on the board of directors of NCRP.4. The Social Justice Philanthropy Collaborative includes Changemakers,

Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, The Funding Exchange,National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, NeighborhoodFunders Group and Resource Generation. More info at:http://www.changingfunding.org/.

Upcoming EventsJuly 25, 2008 San Francisco, Calif.

RAISING CHANGE: A SOCIAL JUSTICEFUNDRAISING CONFERENCEPresented by GIFT and Grassroots FundraisingJournal

Visit NCRP’s booth and see NCRP’s Melissa Johnson’spresentation on trends in foundation funding forsocial justice and community organizations.

Sept 4-5, 2008 Chicago, Ill.

BUILDING RESIDENT POWER &CAPACITY FOR CHANGEPresented by Grassroots Grantmakers, The WoodsFund of Chicago, and The Steans Family Foundation

Sept. 11, 2008 Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUMPresented by The National Center for FamilyPhilanthropy

Sept. 11-12, 2008 Denver, Colo.

ADVOCACY CONVENINGPresented by The Colorado Association ofFoundations

Sept. 18-20, 2008 Denver, Colo.

ASF NATIONAL CONFERENCEPresented by The Association of Small Foundations

NCRP’s Aaron Dorfman will be moderating the ses-sion Cutting Edge Philanthropy. NCRP will co-hostwith the Alliance for Justice a dine around to discussthe importance of funding advocacy, organizing andcivic engagement work.

Sept. 24-26, 2008 Washington, D.C.

NCRP BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING


Accountability is an indis-pensable topic at all chari-ty-related forums—for goodreason. Congress, stateattorneys general and theInternal Revenue Servicehave found it necessary tointervene into the practicesof the charitable sector. Themany investigations havepeeled back the veil ofsecrecy of the sector andthe consequences may beof epic proportions.Poor accountability and

an incredible lack of trans-parency have caused trustin the charitable sector totumble, similar to whathappened to corporationsseveral years ago. The erosion of the public’s trust can beillustrated best by the fact that barely one-tenth of thosesurveyed in 2005 and 2006 polls1 believe that charitiesdo a very good job spending money wisely.Declining public confidence in nonprofit organiza-

tions already has started to cause serious doubts aboutthe sector’s trustworthiness. Trent Stamp, former execu-tive of Charity Navigator, noted in an article that hisorganization gets hundreds of complaints “every dayfrom donors fed up with the unscrupulous practices ofmany charities.”2 Unfortunately, charities have failed todemonstrate that they are producing results with everydollar and volunteer hour they receive.

UNDER INVESTIGATIONEven in view of the diminishing confidence, few are ask-ing the hard questions about the sector’s future. While thenonprofit world is struggling with many problems, none ismore daunting or challenging than the issue of accounta-bility, which has been the subject of some media atten-tion. Despite the attention generated by Senate FinanceCommittee’s hearings, IRS inquiries and regulations, mostcharities are not aware of the impending crisis.

It is not a new issue. For the past several years,Americans have learned about scandals involving abuses,inappropriate expenditures, conflicts of interest andmalfeasance in the for-profit sector. The sector now isunder the regulator’s watchful eye following the misdeedsat such corporate giants as Enron, WorldCom and Tyco.Charities are far more capable of similar misdeeds than

most realize, including those who work within the nonprof-it community. For decades, the charitable sector has beenable to cover up much of its dirty laundry. With no nationaloversight, little leadership and lack of openness, such stal-wart organizations as the United Way, The NatureConservancy andAmerican University have evidenced con-siderable mismanagement in the past. We have seen somecongressional-chartered organizations such as AMVETS,Smithsonian Institution and the American Red Cross losetheir way. Because of poor leadership at the board and stafflevels, the Red Cross and the Smithsonian are in dire finan-cial straits and are seeking bailouts from taxpayers.

LEADERSHIP IN DENIALIntoxicated by denial, the sector consistently has main-tained that the abuses and poor practices are the work of

Is Leadership Denial Feedingthe Charitable Sector Crisis?By Gary Snyder

Phot

o:Re

uter

s/M

olly

Rile

y

Former Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence M. Small (R) seen here with former U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.).Small resigned in March 2007 following revelations regarding excessive compensation and thousands of dollars inunauthorized expenses.

Responsive Philanthropy Summer 200811

a few “bad apples.” This belief is self-serving and com-forting, but not accurate. There are many more “badapples” than most of us believe exist.The problems before the sector are long-standing. In

2004, NewYork State Assistant Attorney General WilliamJosephson testified before the U.S. Senate FinanceCommittee that reviews of fully one in ten of all founda-tions raised red flags. More recently, Elliot Spitzer, whenhe was New York attorney general, pointed out thatexcessive compensation might be the issue in the future.The IRS is challenging tax-exempt salaries that are

unreasonable, under the Intermediate Sanctions provi-sions of the IRS code. It has decided to investigate some200 nonprofit hospitals to see if these charitable institu-tions actually are doing anything to jeopardize their non-profit status. Other investigations involve charity invest-ment managers and symphony leaders.Most recently, authorities from local tax assessors to

members of Congress have challenged the tax-exempt sta-tus of nonprofit institutions—ranging from small grouphomes to wealthy universities—because they look like for-profit businesses. Almost 88 percent of overall nonprofitrevenues in 2005, the most recent year for which figuresare available, came from fees for services, sales and sourcesother than charitable contributions, according to theNational Center for Charitable Statistics. Nonprofits oftenare difficult to distinguish from their taxpaying competitors.Some charities also are acting like for-profits on another

front. The New York Times reported on a study that estimatedthe cost of fraud in the nonprofit sector at about $40 billion, or13 percent of the $300 billion donated to charities in 2006.3

My own ongoing research forNonprofit Imperative4 hasfound more than $1 billion in thefts from charities in 2007alone, in hundreds of cases of illegal behavior gleanedfrom publicly accessible documents. Criminologists sug-gest that this represents only 10–20 percent of the offensesthat actually happened.What is even more startling is that this does not

include most houses of worship, foundations (10 percentof nonprofit funding) and government funding (30 per-cent of total funding).Deficient internal controls have enabled charity board

members or key employees to help themselves to mil-lions of dollars from their organizations’ coffers.

LEADERSHIP VACANCYThese shocking numbers mask the real problem. Thecharitable world is devoid of leadership. There is a pro-

found crisis in the governance and management of manyof our charitable organizations, providing the amphithe-ater to perpetuate all of these abuses.There also is a vacuum in national leadership.

Independent Sector, a coalition of 550 of the nation’slargest nonprofits and foundations, finally has shownconcern, though only after congressional threats. It spentmore than $3.5 million to answer the U.S. SenateFinance Committee’s inquiries. In sum, the toothless rec-ommendations described in its Principles for GoodGovernance and Ethical Practice5 amounted to maintain-ing self-regulation, but invited federal governmentalintervention in a number of areas. The answers speak tominimal voluntary steps that nonprofits can take toimprove their governance and transparency, accompa-nied by measures that are unlikely to make much of a dif-ference in accountability. There is a conspicuousabsence of support for the Principles document fromorganizations and individuals, including prominentfoundations that are influential philanthropic leaders.The sector needs leadership that takes control and

does not abrogate its cherished responsibility of givingdirection to a challenged sector. Very few are willing tospeak out against the hundreds or thousands of badapples that are spoiling the bunch. Too many havedemonstrated indifference in the hope that the uglycloud that is sitting over the sector will dissipate.Such “watchdog agencies” as Charity Navigator, BBB

Wise Giving Alliance and American Institute ofPhilanthropy perform a needed service but do not seempostured to seek change. Public outcries by the leadersof foundations and other nonprofits are exceedingly rare.Little is being done to propagate new ideas that can tran-sition the sector out of its current morass.

OTHER LEADERSHIP ISSUESDubious performance sometimes is blamed on less thanstellar principals. Some believe that charities hire employ-ees who are willing to work for less than market wages ineither the for-profit or governmental sectors. Some arguethat such wage disparities cause increased malfeasance.Some think that lower wages means hiring less compe-tent, less efficient and less effective workers. Others sub-scribe to the view that the nonprofit sector’s inherent inef-ficiencies attract those with a less than stellar skill set, sothere are fewer checks and balances in internal controls.Several, however, believe that some compromises in

the hiring of staff with technical fitness and the selection

of boards with an appropriate skill set are of secondaryimportance to the mission of the agency. And there areindications that the desired change needed to gain com-petent staff and board members is a steep slope that fewwant to climb.As a result, many of those serving on nonprofit boards

don’t know their rights and obligations. When theybecome aware of misdeeds, too few board members arewilling to do something about it. Boards, typically, willnot do anything because they have no clue as to whatthey are supposed to or can do, such as challenging theirorganization’s executive director. Many nonprofit staffmembers are vested in not doing anything. The status quois on their side.There is, however, some concern about the lack of

accountability from charities. Pablo Eisenberg of theGeorgetown University Public Policy Institute, a notedvisionary, says that nonprofit leaders of all stripes remainsilent in the face of abuses, scandals and irresponsibleexpenditures, thereby deepening the extent of the problems.In a speech, Independent Sector President and CEO

Diana Aviv readily admitted that there “are few rules …there are many nonprofits that have no idea that there is aset of expectations.”6 This is quite an appalling admission.Many board members indeed lack the understanding,

as well as the decision-making skills, to deal with theproblems. And then there are those who show shockingindifference and detachment; they have shown a lack ofcommitment to the organization that they have in theirown personal lives.

MOVING ON FROM HEREThe sector is the last to know, or admit, that there is a gapin accountability. Most believe that the embarrassments atthe American Red Cross and the Smithsonian Institution arelimited to large agencies. That, unfortunately, is not true;thousands of charities—regardless of size—are involved inaccountability issues. It is verging on pandemic.Charities are a vital part of our society and are the cor-

nerstone of the American economy that provides life anddeath services. The responsibility for improvement, there-fore, lies with its stakeholders, primarily its leadership.First and foremost, the leadership must acknowledge

that there are, indeed, problems. It must admit the extentof them and address them head-on.Second, it must eliminate the complacency and self-

righteousness that seems all too pervasive. Leadership

must throw off the crusty and entrenched methods ofdoing things that have not served the sector well. Everyattempt should be made to shake the foundations of thesector until integrity and accountability emerge. Changeundoubtedly will be met with apprehension, even someanimus, and a tremendous amount of resistance. In spiteof its perplexities, the leadership must take a worldviewand throw off the parochial perspectives and get its handsdirty. It is going to be a struggle. It is a fight for survival,one worthy of everyone’s participation.Third, the leadership must start to engage in more self-

evaluation and a look to the future. It can begin by rais-ing awareness, with no sugarcoating, of charitableresponsibility at the board and staff levels. It shouldaddress such matters as fiduciary duties, board-basedbusiness solutions, strategic thinking and other skill setsthat often are absent.Fourth, it should seek to produce a generation of

thinkers who possess integrity and are free of the currentconstraints. Clearly, the financial resources are available totackle these objectives, but willingness must there as well.Discontent will not pass until there is an invigorated

response. It would be fatal for the sector to overlook theurgency of the moment.As Paul Light, noted scholar at New York University

and formerly of the Brookings Institution said, “The lastthing anyone wants is a story about how the money theyraised helped pave a road to nowhere.”

Gary Snyder, the managing director of NonprofitImperative in West Bloomfield, Mich., is author ofNonprofits on the Brink and publisher of a monthly e-newsletter—Nonprofit Imperative—which focuses on themajor issues affecting the philanthropic community. Snyderalso is a member of NCRP’s board of directors. He can bereached at [email protected] or at 248.324.3700.

NOTES1. Harris Interactive and New York University’s Organizational

Performance Initiative.2. Trent Stamp, Swing and a Miss: Charities, Like Baseball, Strike Out

(Charity Navigator: New Jersey, April 1, 2005), http://www.charity-navigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=277.

3. Strom, Stephanie, New York Times, “Report Sketches Crime CostingBillions: Theft From Charities,” March 29, 2008.

4. Nonprofit Imperative, a monthly e-newsletter; www.garyrsnyder.com.5. The report is available online at http://www.nonprofitpanel.org/.6. Diana Aviv, Nonprofit Accountability: Inside and Out (Keynote speech

delivered in a Bridgestar event, June 8, 2004).


and power of the community, and contribute knowledgeand experience that other communities can use.Regardless of the issue, community organizing works forpublic policies that, by design, enhance citizen engage-ment rather than treating residents as consumers, clients,victims or claimants.The Mott Foundation’s community organizing grantmak-

ing is part of its Pathways Out of Poverty program, one offour programmatic interest areas. Launched in 2000, thepoverty program expresses the belief that with the right mixof policies, leadership, commitment and social action, ournation can make great strides to alleviate poverty.While there is substantial evidence that Americans

want to reduce poverty, there persists a myth that povertyalleviation is an insurmountable challenge. Yet, from pastexperience, we know that this is not the case. For exam-ple, during the strong economy of the 1960s and the Waron Poverty, the poverty rate was cut in half, from 22.4 per-cent in 1959 to 11.1 percent in 1973. The poverty ratecrept back up over the following 20 years. However, inthe 1990s, we had a strong economy along with a set ofpolicies that promoted and supported work, and thepoverty rate dropped from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3percent in 2000.In each of these periods, the U.S. experienced a near-

full employment economy along with federal and statepolicies that rewarded work and individual initiative, sup-portive civic institutions, and spirited community organ-izing and civic engagement that insisted on a sustainednational commitment to reduce poverty.

The start of the current decade was a time of nearlyunprecedented prosperity in the nation. Many Americanswere living well, and most were removed from the segre-gated neighborhoods and rural communities where work-ing class and poor families are concentrated. It often wasdifficult for most people to grasp fully the depth and con-sequences of poverty, especially after seeing the econom-ic improvements in the previous decade. Yet, millions of

Americans at that time also lived in communities suffer-ing social and economic decline, far from vital services,plagued by crime and unemployment and, by most meas-ures, conscripted to failing schools.Against this backdrop, the Foundation launched a

robust grantmaking effort to enhance the effectiveness ofcommunity organizing as a tool to reduce poverty andincrease civic engagement. While most philanthropicsupport for organizing is focused on a specific issue, themajority of Mott’s support to organizing networks hasbeen for general purposes. These grants allowed thegroups to assess their infrastructure and growth needs anddevelop plans to strengthen their organizing work.Mott’s support for community organizing arose from its

long-held interests in:

• Learning how people can live together to create asense of community, whether at the neighborhoodlevel or as a global society;

• Nurturing strong, self-reliant individuals to ensure awell-functioning society;

• Promoting the social, economic and politicalempowerment of all individuals to preserve funda-mental democratic principles and rights; and,

• Encouraging responsible citizen participation tohelp foster social cohesion.

The primary way that community organizing differsfrom other efforts to increase civic engagement is thatrather than focusing on programs or activities, organizing

focuses on leadership devel-opment, relationship build-ing, and culture change.Instead of asking people toparticipate in projects or ini-tiatives designed by others,organizing provides theopportunity for people todevelop their own analyses

and promote their own decisions by building individualand collective capacity for study, reflection, deliberation,decision-making and action.While community organizing is nonpartisan and plu-

ralistic, it does not require people to leave behind theirbeliefs, affiliations or perspectives. Instead, individualbelief systems contribute to a deliberative processthrough which people determine how to work coopera-


Changing Lives(continued from page 1)

Organizing provides the opportunity for people to develop

their own analyses and promote their own decisions by

building individual and collective capacity for study, reflec-

tion, deliberation, decision-making and action.

tively to identify issues and to develop solutions to prob-lems. Organizing initiatives do not take the place of pol-itics, other democratic processes or institutions. Rather,the relationship building and the skills of organizingenhance politics and can inspire people who have tunedout of public life. At the end of the day, however, organ-izing must deliver tangible assets to low- and moderate-income communities.Community organizing continues to grow in sophistica-

tion and the ability to take action on major issues relatedto family economic well-being, including housing, trans-portation, workforce training, job development, educationand health care. Today, com-munity organizing groupswork to form alliances withresearchers, legal advisors,academics, advocacy organ-izations and think tanks toadvance important changesin public policy.A recent assessment of

community organizing prepared for the Foundation iden-tified tangible successes, including:

• PACT in Miami worked to double the county’s busfleet and won a transportation referendum, whichwill bring $17 billion over 20 years to the publicrail and bus systems.

• BREAD in Ohio won creation of a city-countyHousing Trust Fund, which has generated over $20million thus far.

• InterValley Projects in New England won a $2 mil-lion per year increase in federal funding for jobtraining, passage of a cap on transportation fees for70,000 temporary workers, and $36 million for aNeighborhood Opportunities Program that result-ed in 966 affordable housing units.

• Virginia Organizing Project won $339 million tofinance low-income home ownership and rentalconstruction loans, an increase of $1.5 billion innew state support to public schools, and worked tostreamline the process by which former felons canhave their voting rights restored in Virginia.

• Gamaliel affiliates in Wisconsin negotiated agree-ments with 16 banks that resulted in $700 millionin loans to 7,000 homeowners and helped winincreased funds for drug rehab programs as a resultof a “treatment instead of prison” campaign.

• PICO affiliates in California won expansion of theState Children’s Health Insurance Program,expanded access to health insurance for uninsuredpeople, $50 million in additional funding for after-school programs in poor districts, $15 million forparent/teacher home visitation, and an investmentof $42 million to improve the infrastructure ofhealth clinics.

• Washington (D.C.) Interfaith Network built 150new town homes in the district, won agreement forhundreds of new living-wage construction appren-ticeship jobs, and won agreement on a $100 mil-

lion Neighborhood Investment Fund.• CLOUT in Kentucky won the commitment of thechief justice of the state’s Supreme Court to doublethe size of the Drug Court in Louisville; it also won 19additional beds for drug treatment in the local jail.

• PEACE in Florida worked to pass an unprecedent-ed sales tax in 2004 that dedicates $35 millioneach year to provide primary and comprehensivehealth care for the uninsured; over the next 15years, the program will generate more than $525million; 20,000 uninsured people were served inthe first year alone.

• ACORN led or took a substantial part in campaignsthat resulted in:– $2 billion in living and minimum wage increases;– $6 billion in predatory lending agreements withbanks;

– $6 billion in loan counseling and communityreinvestment;

– $33 million in housing development– $350 million in local infrastructure and publicservices.

These accomplishments reflect the growth and sophis-tication of community organizing in recent years, andreports from the field indicate that the Foundation’s gen-eral support funding has been a critical factor in that


Organizing initiatives do not take the place of politics, other

democratic processes or institutions. Rather, the relationship

building and the skills of organizing enhance politics and

can inspire people who have tuned out of public life.


growth. This support has enabled the networks to addstaff or free up existing personnel to build new affiliatesin community after community. In some cases, thegrowth has been dramatic:

• PICO National Network grew from 22 groups in1997 to 53 in 2007, and DART grew from 12 affil-iates to 21 during the same period.

• The Gamaliel Foundation doubled in size in thelast decade and now is active in 50 metropolitanareas in 22 states.

• The InterValley Project expanded into Maine anddeveloped two new chapters in other NewEngland states.

• ACORN more than doubled its size in the past tenyears, with local chapters in 100 cities.

• Virginia Organizing Project doubled in size, grow-ing to 15 chapters.

Not every local organization is equally strong, butevery local organization is an expression of the determi-nation and aspirations of its members.Growth also is evident in the increased number of

trained organizers and directors, and in the overall con-solidated budgets of the networks and their affiliates.Most of the networks have more than doubled the num-ber of staff organizers since 2000 and plan to recruit andtrain significantly more over the next five years.The growth in organizing brings with it the challenge

of developing methodologies to evaluate the work andmeasure the outcomes. The National Committee forResponsive Philanthropy and several foundations areworking on this task. Because community organizinghas demonstrated such successes and holds such greatpotential for the future, developing an evaluation sys-tem is well worth the investment for funders committedto reducing poverty and reinvigorating Americandemocracy.The challenge before us is not that nothing can be

done to reduce poverty; rather, the challenge is buildinga constituency of citizens who will generate the newideas and political will to place poverty at the center ofthe nation’s policy agenda. Community organizing isuniquely designed—and now positioned—to respond tothat challenge.

Cris Doby is a program officer for The Charles StewartMott Foundation’s Pathways Outout of Poverty Program.

Welcome NCRP's New Board Members

Gara LaMarche, president and CEO of The AtlanticPhilanthropies, is the newest member of NCRP'sBoard of Directors. Other recent additions to theboard include Sherece Y. West, Ph.D. of TheWinthrop Rockefeller Foundation, and WilliamSchulz of the Center for American Progress. Bothjoined NCRP in February.

Research Advisory Committee Formed

In June 2008, we assembled a diverse group ofindividuals who will provide NCRP's staff with crit-ical input and guidance in implementing ourresearch program as outlined in the Strategic Plan.Members of the Research Advisory Committee(RAC) are esteemed experts in their fields, whichrepresent the broad issue areas that feed into thestudy of philanthropy and its role in society. Briefbiographies for each RAC member are available onthe NCRP website.

United Way for Central Carolinas Hit withExecutive Compensation Scandal

A joint investigative report by WCNC-TV and TheCharlotte Observer uncovered the $1.2M benefitspackage in 2007 for UWCC president Gloria PaceKing. You can view Aaron Dorfman's commentariesand TV interview on the NCRP's website.

Please visit www.ncrp.org for the most recentnews and information from NCRP.

The Latest News from NCRP

2001 S Street NW • Suite 620 •Washington, DC 20009

Address Service Requested

NCRP Board of DirectorsOfficersDavid R. Jones Community Service Society of New York (Chair)Diane Feeney French American Charitable Trust (Vice Chair)Lana Cowell National Alliance for Choice in Giving (Secretary)Rhoda Karpatkin Consumers Union (Treasurer)

Directors

Marilyn Aguirre-Molina Lehman College, City University of New YorkChristine Ahn Korea Policy InstituteAndrea Alexander Chinook Wind EnterprisesDave Beckwith Needmor FundLouis Delgado Independent ConsultantRichard Farias Tejano Center for Community ConcernsMarjorie Fine Center for Community Change

Cynthia Guyer San Francisco Schools AllianceJudy Hatcher Environmental Support CenterLarry KressleyGara LaMarche The Atlantic PhilanthropiesPete Manzo The Advancement ProjectNadia Moritz The Young Women’s ProjectRussell Roybal National Gay and Lesbian Task ForceWilliam Schulz Center for American ProgressGary Snyder Nonprofit ImperativeHelen Vinton Southern Mutual Help AssociationSherece Y. West Winthrop Rockefeller FoundationJodi Williams Community Shares of Minnesota

Past Board ChairsPaul Castro Jewish Family Service of Los AngelesJohn Echohawk Native American Rights FundPablo Eisenberg Public Policy Institute, Georgetown UniversityTerry Odendahl New Mexico Association of Grantmakers

www.ncrp.org

New from NCRP

Strategic Plan 2008–2012 September 2007The NCRP board of directors approved a strategic plan that will guidethe organization’s programming for the next five years. The strategicplan is the result of several months of intensive collaboration betweenNCRP’s board, staff and consultants from the TCC Group, as well asthe invaluable input from a diverse group representing the philan-thropic communities.

Strategic Grantmaking: Conservative Foundationsand the School Privatization Movement November 2007In this report, author Rick Cohen shows how philanthropic capitalfrom small and large foundations has helped build political support forthe school privatization agenda using movement-building grantmak-ing strategies.

Embracing a New Beginning:Annual Report 2007 May 2008This report looks at the past year’s accomplishments, including thenew Strategic Plan.

visit: www.ncrp.org/publications/index.asp

Documents

Funding Community Organizing, Changing Lives · 2019-10-31 · Funding Community Organizing, Changing Lives By Christine A. W. Doby Members of the Interfaith Federation of Northwest