Philanthropy and the Limits of Accountability: A Relationship of Respect and Clarity

Brad RourkeSummer 2014

Contents

1 Foreword

3 Introduction

4 I. Philanthropy @ Crossroads 4 AShiftingLandscape 5 AnArmofGovernment 6 II. Impact, Effectiveness, Institutional Accountability 6 Publicvs.PrivateMoney 7 Transparency≠Clarity 9 ImpactandEffectiveness 10 RiskandSuccess 11 III. Accountability: “It’s about Relationships” 12 AccountabletoWhom? 13 IV. A Relationship of Respect and Clarity 14 QuestionsPhilanthropyShouldAskItself 15 Selected Readings 15 Participant List 16 Endnotes

Copyright2014byPhilanthropyforActiveCivicEngagement(PACE)andtheCharlesF.KetteringFoundation

Theinterpretationsandconclusionscontainedinthispublication,unlessexpresslystatedtothecontrary,representtheviewsoftheauthorandnotnecessarilythoseofPhilanthropyforActiveCivicEngagement(PACE)ortheKetteringFoundation,theirdirectors,ortheirofficers.

1

Foreword

Philanthropy and Accountability: A Time for ReflectionBy Chris Gates, Executive Director of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE)

Thereisnodenyingthatnewformsofcommunicationtechnology,andconstantlyevolvingsocialmediatools,havealteredthetermsofoursocialcompact.Asoneyoungtechexecutiverecentlypointedout,whatsomepeopledon’tunderstandisthatinsideeverydeviceandeverypieceofsoftwareistheDNAofbothdemocracyandtransparency.

Sectoraftersector,institutionafterinstitution,haverealizedtheyneedtorethinktherelationshiptheyhavewiththeircustomersandtheirconstituents.Thedeferencethatsocietyonceshowedexpertswhoknewthingsthat“we”didn’thasbeenreplacedbyasocietyfilledwithpeoplewhohavetheability,withtheswipeofafingerorakeystroke,tobecomeinstantlyinformedabout,andengagedin,avastvarietyoftopics.

Citizenseverywherehavedemandedmorevoice,moreinclusion,andmoreinformationineveryaspectoftheirlives.Experts,leaders,journalists,nonprofits,businesses,andgovernmentsarenolongerdeferredtoastheyoncewere.Governmentagenciesnowmustanswerfortheirinefficiencies.Businessesmustjustifythisquarter’sflatprofitsevenbeforethequarterisover.Schoolsarenowexpectedtoprove“learningout-comes.”Donorsandvolunteersbothdemandreal-timeaccountabilityfromthenonprofitorganizationstheysupport.

Thisisallseentodayasnormal,whenasrecentlyasadecadeagoalloftheseorganizationsweremuchmoreopaqueandoftengiventhebenefitofthedoubt.Lestweforget,Facebookwasfoundedin2004,YouTubein2005,andTwitterin2006.

Sowhilethemedia,politicalparties,government,nonprofits,andbusinessesallworktomeetthenewdemandsofthesehyperconnectedtimes,thereisonesectorthathas—untilrecently—remainednearlyimmunefromsuchpressure.Thatisthefieldoforganizedphilanthropy.

Fordecades,foundationshavedonetheirworkwithlittlepressuretomaketheiroperationsmoreopenandunderstandable.Boardshavebeenfreetomakedecisionsbehindcloseddoorsaboutwhichareastheywill focusonandwhatprojectsandorganizationstheywill fund.ThoughfoundationsarecreatedthroughacharitabledonationasdefinedbytheInternalRevenueService,theyhavegenerallybeencon-sidered,andhaveactedlike,privateorganizations.Theseinstitutionshavelargelydonetheirworkoutoftheglareofpublicreviewfromthetimeoftheirfounding.Itwasasifthepracticeofphilanthropyhadescapedwidespreadpublicscrutinybecause,bydefinition,philanthropywasabout“doinggood.”

2

Butthatsetofassumptionshasbeenchanging.Moreandmorefundersaremovingtowardanapproachcalled“strategicphilanthropy,”wheretheirboardsandstaffmembersdevelopapolicyoroutcomeagendaandthenusetheirgrantstopursueit.Fewerandfewerfundersacceptunsolicited,“overthetransom,”proposals.Somefundersarenowengaginginpublicproblem-solvingeffortsinwaysthatAndrewCarnegieandJohnD.Rockefellerprobablyneverimagined,whichhassparkedalivelydebateabouthow“public”or“private”foundationsreallyare,orshouldbe.Whatarestillofficiallyconsidered“grants”arenowsome-timesdetailedportfoliosofworkthathavebeendevelopedbythefunderitself,withthenonprofitpartnerservingmoreascontractorthangrantee.

PhilanthropyforActiveCivicEngagement(PACE),alearningcollaborativeoffoundationsthatmakegrantsinthecivicengagement,service,anddemocraticrenewalspace,feelsthetimeisrighttoexplorethesecomplicated,andsometimescontroversial,issuesofaccountabilityandtransparency.InajointeffortwiththeCharlesF.KetteringFoundation,anonpartisan,nonprofitresearchfoundationthatstudieshowciti-zensmakechoices,itengagedinaseriesofconversations,meetings,andinterviewswithphilanthropicandsocialsectorleadersoverthecourseofthepastyear,exploringhowphilanthropymightbestrespondtothenewrealitiesofanaccountabilitysociety.

Thisreportdrawstheoutlinesofwhatanewconversationaboutaccountabilityandtransparencyinthefieldofphilanthropymightlooklike.Acasecanbemadethatprivatefoundationsarebothquasi-privateandquasi-publicinstitutions,whichmakestheconversationevenmoredifficultandtextured,butitisaconversationthatphilanthropymustjoin.

Howareweredefiningourroleinaddressingthepublicagenda?Howcanweimproveourworkingrela-tionshipwithcitizens,communities,fieldsofwork,andgrantees?Howdoweworkwithothersectorsinacollaborativeway?Isourroletoprovideventurecapitaltosocialentrepreneurs?Ortoscalesuccessfulinnovation?Howopenandinclusiveshouldwebeindevelopingoursocialchangeagendasandstrategies?

Asphilanthropyrespondstoachangedworldanditsevolvingnewrole,itwoulddowelltodevelopanswerstothesequestions,mindfulofthefundamentalrelationshipofrespectandclaritythattheirpublicsseek.Todothis,wewillneedtoengageasasector.

3

Philanthropy and the Limits of Accountability: A Relationship of Respect and Clarity

IntroductionAgrowingemphasisonaccountability and transparencyhas found itsway intoabroad rangeof insti-tutionsinthenation’spublicandprivatelife.FromtheObamaadministration’sproclamationon“opengovernment”onhisfirstfulldayinoffice,totheemergingdemandsinmultiplestatesforclearlabelingoffoodsthatcontaingeneticallymodifiedingredients,tothepersistenceofhigh-stakestestinginpubliceducationasameansof“grading”schools,theevidenceappearseverywhere.

Nosector—includingphilanthropy—hasbeenimmunetotheincreasingpressurefordisclosureandreport-ing.Majornationalfoundationsandsmallcommunityfoundationshaveallbeendealingwiththedemandtodemonstrateimpact,andmanyarerecalibratingtheirgivingportfoliosinordertohaveagreaterdem-onstratedeffect.“Strategicphilanthropy,”“impactinvesting,”and“collectiveimpact”areallrelatedstrate-giesthatreflectthisimperative.

Inresponsetothistrend,theKetteringFoundationpartneredwithPACEtoinviteadistinguishedgroupoffoundationexecutivesandthoughtleadersinthephilanthropicandsocialsectorstoaseriesofthreeround-tablediscussions.Twenty-threeparticipantstookpart intheconversations(twoofferedindividual inter-viewsinstead),whichtookplaceinDayton,Ohio,andWashington,DC,in2012and2013.Theyexploredindepthwhat“accountability”and“transparency”mightmeanforphilanthropy—andhowphilanthropymightrespond.

Thisreportfeaturestheirinsightsandquestions.*

Anumberofpressuresdrivetheconcernforgreateraccountabilityandtransparency.Pollingdata indi-cateAmericanshavelessandlessconfidenceinalloftheinstitutionsofpubliclife.Regulatingauthoritieshavebeguntocreatemorestringentrequirements.Arevised990taxformintroducedbytheIRSin2007requiresexpandedrecordkeepinganddisclosureofinformationfromtax-freeorganizations.Asthefederalbudgetcrisiscontinuesandspendingonpublicprogramsdecreases,manyoftheproblemsaddressedbyphilanthropyhaveincreasedinintensity.Meanwhile,manyphilanthropicorganizationsaredirectingmoreattentiontoshowinggreaterimpact.

Thereisdebateoverwhetherphilanthropyholdsapublictrustandisthereforeobligedtorespondtopub-licdemands.Furthermore,accountabilitymaymeansomethingdifferenttocitizensthanitdoestothosedoingtheworkofphilanthropicorganizations.Institutionalmovestowardgreateraccountabilitymayhaveparadoxicallywidenedthegulfbetweencitizensandtheinstitutionsthatservethem.

*Statementsmadebytheparticipantsquotedinthisreportareindicatedinitalics.Theconversationswereheldunder assurancesofanonymitytoallowpeopletospeakfreely.Therefore,noattributionsaregivenand,inrarecases,editsare madetoobscureidentity.

4

Overthecourseoftheseworkshopdiscussions,participantsworkedtheirwaythroughtheseandotherchallenges,tocallforanapproachtoaccountabilitythatisrootedinrespectfortheroleofthepublicandseekstoprovideclarityaboutwhatinstitutionsaretryingtodo.

I. Philanthropy @ Crossroads ModernUSphilanthropycantraceitsrootstotheGildedAgewealthofRussellSage,AndrewCarnegie,andJohnD.Rockefeller,whosefoundationsreceivedtheirchartersin1907,1911,and1913,respectively.AccordingtophilanthropycriticJoanneBarkanwritinginDissent,“Thesewerestrangenewcreatures—quiteunliketraditionalcharities.Theyhadvastlygreaterassetsandwerestructuredlegallyandfinanciallytolastforever.”1

Establishmentoftheincometaxin1913spurredthecreationofnewtax-freefoundations,andtheirnum-bers increasedsubstantiallyamidsthighpost-WorldWar II incometaxrates,givingrisetogovernmenteffortstoexertgreatercontrolovertheseindependententities.Themoderneraoforganizedphilanthropywasestablishedwiththe1969TaxReformAct,whoseprovisionsremaininforcetothisday.Thisactcre-atedthe“privatefoundation,”whichiswhatmostpeoplehaveinmindwhentheysay“foundation.”(Thetwotermsareusedinterchangeablyinthisreport.)

Privatefoundationsmustmeetasetofrequirementsinordertoretaintheirstatus.Theymustpayoutat leastfivepercentoftheirendowmentforcharitablepurposeseachyear,althoughthisamountmayincludeanumberofadministrative,travel,andotherexpenses.FoundationsalsomustfileannualreportswiththeIRS,maynotownoroperatesignificantfor-profitbusinesses,maynotengageinself-dealingorpoliticalactivity,andmustfollowotherspecializedrulesfornonprofits.

AccordingtoIRSdataaccessedthroughtheNationalCenterforCharitableStatisticsattheUrbanInstitute,in2010(thelatestdataavailable)88,879privatefoundationshadfiledtaxformsintheprevioustwoyears.Thegreatmajorityofthesefoundationsdonothavethelargeamountsofmoneypublicimaginationmayascribetothem.Most(63percent)holdassetsoflessthan$1millionandonly2,531(3percent)haveover$25million.

A Shifting Landscape

Asagroup,foundationshavefewdirectexternalpressures.Theyhavenoneedtoshowaprofittosurviveandanswertonoshareholders.Thelegalrequirementsarestraightforward.

However,evenfromthebeginning, foundationshavehadacomplicatedrelationshipwithgovernmentandsociety-at-large.TherewasseriousreluctancetograntachartertoTheRockefellerFoundation,withTheodore Roosevelt andWilliamHoward Taft both expressing vehement opposition during their cam-paigns for thepresidency.Roosevelt,a“trustbuster,” insisted“noamountofcharity inspendingsuchfortunes[asRockefeller’s]cancompensateinanywayforthemisconductinacquiringthem,”whileTaftcalledtheinitiative“abilltoincorporateMr.Rockefeller.”

5

Today,regulatorscontinuetoconsiderraisingthepayoutthresholdandaddingotherrestrictions. IowasenatorChuckGrassleycametobeknownforusinghischairmanshipoftheSenateFinanceCommittee(2003–2007)tolaunchhearingsintotheactivitiesofnonprofitorganizations,includingthoseoffounda-tions.And,astherecessionthatbegan in2008woreonandstateand localgovernmentrevenuesfell,theseentitiesbeganlookinginearnestatfoundationsasawaytofillfundingshortfalls.

Participantsintheroundtableconversationspointtomanyinitiativesbydifferentlevelsofgovernmentasthreatstotheirabilitytofunctioneffectively.Asoneparticipantsaid:

In something like 19 states, there’s a bill, or laws have already changed. Whether it’s Illinois or Pennsylvania, [states are changing] how they’re approaching the property tax exemptions. And hospitals [are] losing their exempt status. Churches [are] losing their exempt status for part of their property because [government] coffers are bare and they’re looking at creative ways to fill the cof-fers. They’re looking at the sector in very different ways.

Whetherthepressuresaredirectlyattributabletoemptygovernmentcoffersortoothercauses,thesenseofpressureisunmistakable.Thoseworkinginthephilanthropicsectoroftenhaveasenseofbeingbesieged.

An Arm of Government

Philanthropyisbeginningtooccupyaspacethatgoesbeyondthesupplementalroleithastraditionallyplayedinpubliclife—thatis,byprovidingameliorationinareasonceseenasthesolepurviewofgovern-ment.Thus,itcouldbeperceivedthatthephilanthropicsectorisindangerofbecominganarmofgovern-ment.Examplesincludethe2010MarkZuckerberginvestmentinNewark,NewJersey,schoolsandthemultiplephilanthropiceffortsunderwayinDetroitthatfundwhatwereformerlypublicfunctions.(SeesidebarsonDetroitandZuckerberg’sinvestmentinNewarkonpages6and8.)

Becauseitprovidesaparticularlystarkexampleofthisphenomenon,Detroitcameuprepeatedlyamongconversationparticipants.Oneparticipantreferredtoitas“groundzero”forthisconversation.Discussionfocusedon theway thesecircumstanceshaveplaced foundations in thecenterofpolicymaking.Whooughttohavethefinalsayoversuchpublicprojects?Asoneparticipantputit:

[The foundations are] making public investments and yet they’re doing it behind the wall. They struggle with trying to figure out what it means to be transparent, how transparent we need to be, how accountable we should be, what’s appropriate, what’s not appropriate. . . . It’s not a conver-sation about your legal requirements. . . . It’s a different conversation about what your obligation is to the communities that you serve.

ThisquestionisnotrestrictedtoDetroitofcourse.Foundationsaresteppingintothepublicarenainbolder,andsometimesmoreprescriptive,ways.OneparticipantraisedaconcernovertheZuckerberginvestmentinNewark:“[He] and his staff can go in and negotiate massive reforms in the Newark school system, none of which went through any level of public process, in return for this big gift.”

6

II. Impact, Effectiveness, Institutional AccountabilityMany organizations view “accountability” from a primarily institutional standpoint. Foundationswidelyacceptthatmakingeffortstoemployorganizationalbestpracticesisagoodidea.Thefieldofphilanthropyhasbecomeincreasinglyprofessionalized,andacottageindustrythatassistsfoundationsandtheirstaffswithimplementingsuchbestpracticeshasgrown.TheFoundationCenterlists21majorworksonits“bestpractices”Webpage. Its “ethicsandaccountability”page includessamplefinancialdisclosure forms forstaffandboardmembers,andadviceonwhetheracompanyanditsrelatedprivatefoundationshareofficeequipmentandsupplies.2

Thislevelofaccountabilityisnotindispute.

Public vs. Private Money

Althoughprivatefoundationsarecharteredastax-exemptorganizationsthereisareasonabledebateoverwhethertheirmoneyisprivateorpublic.Formanywhoviewthesefundsaspublicdollars,thelevelofaccountabilityextendsbeyondsatisfyingthefoundationboardanditsdonors.Inessence,itmeanshold-inggrantmakingbyfoundationsandexpendituresbygovernmentandotherpublicinstitutionstosimilarstandards.Someevensuggestthatweoughttoholdfoundationstoanevenstricterstandardofaccount-abilitywhenitcomestohowtheyspendtheirfunds.TheNationalCommitteeforResponsivePhilanthropy,for instance,publishesCriteria for Philanthropy at Its Best,which suggestsways foundationsought toimprovetheir“relevancetononprofits,theeconomicallyandsociallyunderservedAmericansandsocietyasawhole.”Theseincludedonatinghalfofgrantdollars“tobenefitlower-incomecommunities,commu-

Detroit: Foundations and Public Policy

Detroit faces a daunting set of challenges. Its popula-tionhas shrunkby25percent in the lastdecade, cityservicesarestretchedtothelimit,anditsrevenuesareconstantly inquestion.Withunemploymentabove35percent,itfacesviolentcrime,arson,abandonedbuild-ings,andpoorschools. InJuly2013,thecitydeclaredbankruptcy.

Anumberoffoundationshavefocusedeffortsonrevital-izingDetroit.Mostrecently,inJanuary2014,anumberofDetroitfoundationspledged$330millioninordertosavetheDetroitInstituteofArts’collections,whichhadbeenapotentialtargetforsaleinbalancingDetroit’sbooks.

InanopinionpieceintheChronicle of Philanthropy, theHudson Institute’sBradleyCenter forPhilanthropyandCivicRenewaldirectorWilliamSchambradescribeshowthismovenotonlyplacesthesefoundationsinthecen-terofpublicpolicy,butalsoraisesanumberofquestions:

“When nine American foundations this monthpledged $330-million to help Detroit emerge frommunicipalbankruptcy,theytookanunprec-edentedplungeintothegiveandtakeofthecity’sdeeplycontentiouspolitics.

“The extraordinary ‘give’ is the commitment ofprivatefundstosustainpublicpensions,thesortofgrantmakingthatfoundationshaveresolutelyrefusedtodointhepast.Thismaycomebacktohauntthem,withsomanyotherAmericancitiesfacingfinancial difficultieseverybit asdauntingasDetroit’s.

“Theequallyunusual ‘take’ is the insistence thatthefundswillnotbeforthcomingunlessabroadrangeofprivateandpublicinstitutionsmeetcer-tainconditions.Thiscrossesalinebetweenmerelyseekingandblatantlydemandingresponsesfrompotentialgrantees,includingpublicagenciesthatshouldbeanswerableonlytothevoters.”3

7

nitiesofcolorandothermarginalizedgroups,”andproviding“atleast50percentof...grantdollarsforgeneraloperatingsupport.” 4

Othersholdthatfoundationmoneyisinherentlyprivatemoneyandthenotionofpublicaccountabilityinthatcaseisnotapplicablebeyondadheringtothetaxcodeandrelatedlaws.Thispointofview,welloutlinedinEvelynBrodyandJohnTyler’sHow Public Is Private Philanthropy?,holdsthatthestipulationthat“exemptcharitiesdedicatetheirassetsto,andusetheminfurtheranceof,charitablepurposesandnotforprivatebenefit”issufficient—andinfactthat“individualsandbusinesses[also]benefitfromtax-favoredtreatment.Theirassetsandresourcesdonottherebybecomepublic,andtheyarenottherebytransformedintogovernmententities.” 5

Oneparticipantexpressedhisconcernabouttheambiguitiesinherentintreatingphilanthropicgivingasthoughitwereapublicprocess:

I worry a little bit that we have a public process for distributing public dollars; it’s called government, and it’s got all the transparencies that we know about. . . . It seems to me that this was created because there’s a need for a process to distribute public dollars that is not as transparent and involved in public participation as government is, and if you say . . . foundations should operate . . . just like government . . . live-stream their board meetings, be open to the Sunshine Act, and Freedom of Information laws, why have [foundations]? Why not just turn the money over to government?

Transparency ≠ Clarity

Onewaythatinstitutionsseektodemonstrateaccountabilityisthroughtransparency.Thelogicisthatiffoundationsmademoreinformationavailabletothepublic,peoplewouldhavemoretrustintheirdeci-sionsandwouldbelesspronetosuspectcorruption,waste,fraud,andabuse.Noonetakingpartinthesediscussionsdenied that transparency isan importantcomponent inestablishingandmaintaining trustbetweeninstitutionsandcitizens.Howevertheysawatleasttwoproblems.

First,thisapproachtoaccountabilityplacestheburdenofresponsibilityonthepublic.Thepublicmusttaketheinitiativetoseekouttheinformationbeingprovided.Second,makingsenseoftheinformationcanbedifficult,especiallyincasesthatinvolvelargeamountsofdata.Asoneparticipantpointedout,citi-zensmayseethesemassivedatatrovesnotashelpfulbutasobfuscating:

What’s happened with the confluence of data transparency and accountability is with all good inten-tions. It’s very easy for institutions to provide all of that, and do nothing but obfuscate, because the other, the “to whom,” the public has no capacity, time, interest, or guidance in making sense of it.

Butparticipants also spokeof lessbenignmotives for transparency.According tooneparticipant, theintentofissuinglargeamountsofdatacanbeinstitutionalsurvival:

The function of accountability was to stop government, to get government off their backs. . . . It was, “what do we need to do in order to have them not tell us what to do and to steer our dollars in a way that’s different?”

8

Anotheradded:

The intent is to protect the institution. The question is, does that protect the institution? Does that obfuscation help or hurt? [Foundations] believe, I think with honor, that it helps the institution, and it protects them and it’s justified.

Evenifwellintentioned,effortstobetransparent,withoutalsocreatingcontextfortheinformation,cancreateproblems,asoneparticipantmaintained:

My personal feeling is that we are massively, unbelievably wrongheaded about metrics. . . . In the end, we need some smart person, or librarian or whoever, to take all that data and process it, and be able to develop a relationship where you can have a conversation about performance that is coherent, where you can say, “So here’s the deal. We’ve looked at this [data], and so it does look like this school’s getting a little better, but when we look at it, it’s really the kids from that side of Broadway, not this side of Broadway.” To actually make sense of it. . . . The caring act of saying, “I can’t just give you the data.” It’s like this [the Obama] administration that tells everybody, “Look at all the data that’s on our website.” I mean in the end, it’s just not helpful.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Gifts: Flexibility vs. TransparencyIn September2010, Facebook cofounderMarkZucker-bergappearedonOprahalongwiththen-Newark,NewJersey,mayorCoryBookerandGovernorChrisChristieto announce a $100 million gift to improve Newarkschools.AccordingtoanarticleintheHuffington Post:

“Thegiftwaspresentedasawaytotrytoimprovethedistrict,whichhasbeenplaguedforyearsbylowtestscores,poorgraduationratesandcrum-blingbuildings.Thedistrictwastakenoverbythestate in 1995 after instances of waste andmis-management,includingthespendingoftaxpayermoneybyschoolboardmembersoncarsandres-taurantmeals.”6

Thegift (a challengegrant) generated someconcerns:parentswantedtoknowhowthemoneywouldbeused,accordingtothearticle.Inparticular,thegiftsparkedcom-plaintsthatitwasameanstobolstercharterschoolsin anareawheretraditionalpublicschoolswerestruggling.

The American Civil LibertiesUnion filed anOpen Pub-lic Records Act request withMayor Booker’s adminis-tration for more information, which the government

denied,statingtherewasnorelevantinformationtobehad. The ACLU filed a lawsuit—which itwon—forcingthecitytoreleasealle-mailsrelatedtothegiftanditslateradministration.

Morerecently,closertoFacebook’shomeinSiliconValley,Zuckerberghaspledged$1billiontoalocalcommunityfoundation, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.This,too,isgeneratingcontroversyasthenatureofthegiftmakesitdifficultforthepublictodeterminehowthemoneywillbespent.Accordingtothe Wall Street Journal:

“‘Community foundations are popular targets[for such gifts] because they allow donors toshield the ultimate recipients of their largesse,’said Melissa Berman, an adjunct professor atColumbia University who teaches courses onphilanthropicstrategy.

“‘Using a community foundation like this givespeoplelikeZuckerbergandhiswifemoreprivacyin their giving,’ Berman said. Such groups haveto saywhere theirmoney goes, but notwhereit came from or who directed which grants gowhere,shesaid.‘Thisallowspeopletogiveessen-tiallyinsecret,andthat’sattractivetopeopleinthespotlight.’”7

9

Philadelphia: Jeremy Nowak and Driving ImpactJustafterThanksgivingin2012,theWilliamPennFoun-dation,thelargestfoundationthatfocusessolelyonthePhiladelphiaarea,surprisedtheworldofphilanthropyaswell as its local community by announcing that itspresident,JeremyNowak,wassteppingdownafterlessthan18monthsonthejob.

Itisunusualforinstitutionleaderstomoveonsoquickly.And while the foundation’s press release said they“mutually decided that the time is right for Nowak totransitionoutofhiscurrentrole,”itwascleartoobserv-ersthattheideawasnotNowak’s.

Nowakhadbeenacontroversialfigureinthecommunity,witha consultingbackgroundandamandate todrivemajor reforms in a troubledmunicipal school system.(Hewas described early in his tenure as “unafraid ofrufflingfeathers.”)HispredecessorattheWilliamPennFoundationtoldtheNotebookthattheyhad“broughtinNowakbecausetheboardwantedsomeonewithaboldvisionandarealabilitytobringeveryonetofocusonaparticularsetofissues.”8

Theboldvision,whichincludedaggressiveprogramstocloseanachievementgapby creatingmore “highper-formingseats”inthecity’sschoolsmayhavebeentoo

much. Nowak became the focal point of public com-plaints as the foundation ceased giving to long-timegrant recipients. For his part, Nowakmaintained thatonlylargechangeswouldhavetheneededeffect.Inanearlyinterview,hesaid:

“‘You shift expectations not simply by shiftingpolicy.Youshiftexpectationsbysupportinggreatpractices, whether they’re in civil society, thepublicsector,ortheprivatesector.’

“Inthatvein,thefoundationgaveamonster$15milliongranttothePhiladelphiaSchoolPartner-shipearlierthismonth.PSP’splanistopassthatmoneyondirectlytoschoolsthataredoingwell,regardless of whether they’re Catholic, charter,ormanagedbythePhiladelphiaschooldistrict.’”9

ThePSPplan,alongwithotherinitiatives,provedunpop-ularamongasegmentofthecommunitythathadlongbeenworkingforreforminitsownway.

Another local website, Philebrity.com, reported that“jubilation [was] in the air” at local nonprofits overNowak’sdeparture,asacommunityfrustratedwiththechanges reacted. One online commenter complained:“WilliamPenn,likeallothermajorgrantingorganizations,now requires a lot more quantitative/results-drivenanalysisbeforehandingoverchecks.”10

Impact and Effectiveness

Thereisagrowingbodyofthoughtthatseesaccountabilityaslinkedtoactualoutcomes.Inotherwords,accountability isdemonstratedbyshowing impact.Thishasgivenrisetoanumberofapproachesvari-ouslycalledstrategic (oroutcome-oriented)philanthropy,collective impact,andothers.Althoughtheyhavesubtledifferences,theysharemanysimilarities.Strategicphilanthropyisanapproachtograntmak-ingthatprizesevaluationandresults.

Oneofthechiefproponentsofthisapproach,formerWilliamandFloraHewlettFoundationpresidentPaulBrest(nowatStanfordUniversity),describesitintheStanford Social Innovation Review:

Outcome-orientedphilanthropyisatleastacenturyold,butthepast10orsoyearshaveseenanupsurgeinbothitsintensityanditsextent....Anincreasing,albeitstillsmall,numberoffounda-tionsseemtohaveadoptedanoutcomeorientation.

“Outcome-oriented”issynonymouswith“result-oriented,”“strategic,”and“effective.”Itreferstophilanthropywheredonorsseektoachieveclearlydefinedgoals;wheretheyandtheirgranteespursue evidence-based strategies for achieving those goals; andwhere both partiesmonitor

10

progresstowardoutcomesandassesstheirsuccessinachievingtheminordertomakeappropri-atecoursecorrections.

The idea that philanthropy should seek results,may seem so obvious as tomake themodifieroutcome-orientedsuperfluous.Butdespitetheincreasingbeliefthattheworkofthesectorshouldrestongoal-oriented,evidence-basedstrategies,veryfewdonorsactuallyfollowtheseprinciples.11

Collective impact,meanwhile, is awayof applying this approachon amore communitywide level. InaStanford Social Innovation Review article entitled, “Collective Impact,” JohnKania andMark Kramerdescribethekeyelements:acommonagenda,sharedmeasurementsystems,mutuallyreinforcingactivi-ties,continuouscommunication,anda“backbonesupportorganization.”12

AsBrestpointsout, theseapproachesmightwell seemascontroversialasapplepie.But theyarenotuniformlyaccepted.

AvocalcriticofstrategicphilanthropyisWilliamSchambra,who,inremarksdeliveredattheHewlettFoun-dation(andreprintedintheNonprofit Quarterly),says:

[Theproblem is] the fundamentaldeficiencyof the science-basedapproach to solvinghumanproblems,which liesbehind strategicphilanthropy. . . . To thisday, theoriesabout the causesofhumanbehaviormultiplyendlessly.Weareleftwithmanyinterestinganddiverseschoolsofthoughtonthesubject.Butwehavenouniversallyacceptedcollectionofprovenfindings,waitingtobepluggedintoourtheoriesofchange.

Infact...“solvingproblems”isitselfaskewedandbiasedframeworkforapproachingthisques-tion,privilegingexpertanalyticalsolutions,anddiminishingtheunspoken,accumulated,idiosyn-craticwisdomofthelocalandimmediatecommunity.13

Otherparticipantsintheseconversationsmadesimilarpoints:

There’s a rather strong strain . . . of foundations now deciding that they know what the problem is and that they know what the solution is and that they’re now going to be subcontracting [with nonprofits] to actually do the work as if they are paid employees or paid consultants.

Risk and Success

Thereisanironictwisttothestrategicviewofphilanthropy.Manyadherentsofthisapproacharealignedwithabusinessapproachtoproblemsolvingwithentrepreneurialrootsthatembracerisk.Yetfocusingonimpactasthemeasureofsuccessmaytendtosqueezeoutinnovation,asonlythosethingsthatarealreadyknowntobesuccessfultendtogetfunded.

JohnTylermakesthispointinhis2013monographTransparency and Philanthropy:

11

Opportunitiesforsteadfastnessinthefaceofpublicoppositionandcontrarypopularopinionareamongthemostimportantconstructivecharacteristicsofphilanthropyanditsuniquerolesinthiscountry,butcallsforbroadlyincreasingtransparencytoenhancephilanthropiceffectivenessriskunderminingthisvirtue.14

ParticipantsintheseconversationsechoedTyler’spoint.Asonequipped:

The joke is that if you worked at a venture capital firm and you made ten bets, and one of them was a raging success, and two were medium-size successes, and seven were failures, you would get a raise, and a promotion, and a bigger office. And if you’re a program officer at a foundation and made ten grants, and one was a big success, two were medium successes, and seven were failures, you’d be polishing your resume.

Anotherparticipantagreed:

We’re not dealing with the easy problems in philanthropy, right? So, you are throwing the Hail Mary passes here, and we should be owning the fact that you’re going to have a very low hit rate when you’re making these kinds of investments. If they were easy, government would do it.

Afurtherexchangebetweentwoparticipantsillustratesthetension:

You can experiment and learn things, and maybe not have a grand success but advance the field, because you’ve learned things, and taken risks, and tried things that other people wouldn’t do.

Isn’t that part of how we should define success in philanthropy?

III. Accountability: “It’s about Relationships” Researchsuggeststhatthereisagapbetweentheinstitutionalviewofaccountabilityandwhatcitizensmeanwhen they think about it. “Thepublic’s startingpoint onmost aspects of accountability is dra-maticallydifferent from thatofmost leaders,” according to a recentPublicAgenda/Kettering Founda-tionresearchreportentitled, Don’t Count Us Out.Thereportanalyzesandcataloguesthesedifferences.Amongthem:

Leadersarefocusedontheirinstitutionsandwhatkindsofchangeswillmakeitfunctionmoreeffectively.Manyareoftenstunninglydisconnectedfrombroadpublicconcerns.Evenwhenlead-ersareattunedtopublicgoals,theirexpertiseandjargonoftenlimittheirabilitytoworkproduc-tivelywithandforthepublic.

Manypeopletodayarealertto,andoftenresentfulof,institutionalsystemsthatseemtotreatthepublic/customersas“cogsinthewheel,”ratherthanasindividuals.Manybelievethatinstitutionsareincreasinglyimperviousandunresponsivetoindividuals’questions,priorities,orproblems.15

12

While theresearchunderlyingDon’t Count Us Out focusedonavarietyof institutional leaders—not justthoseinthefieldofphilanthropy—itsinsightsaresalient.Thegapbetweenthewaythoseorganizationalleaderstalkedaboutaccountabilityandthewaythereportsayscitizensdowassimilartomanyofthethemessoundedbytheparticipantsintheroundtableconversations.

Fromthestandpointofcitizens,whentheyconsiderthematter,an institutionshowsaccountabilitybydemonstratingthatitisinrelationshiptothecitizensitserves.Thisisrelational accountability,accordingtoTuftsUniversityprofessorPeterLevine,writingforDemos:

Mostpeopledonotwant informationalaccountability; theywant relationalaccountability.Forexample,theydonotwanttoknowthetestscores,teachersalaries,andgraduationratesattheirlocalhighschool;theywanttoknowtheprincipalandhaveconfidenceinhervalues.16

Accountable to Whom?

Onequestionimplicitinanyconceptofaccountabilityis:“towhom”?Isafoundationaccountabletothe

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Solutions Invented Here

TheBillandMelindaGatesFoundation,withanendow-mentof$38.3billion, isthelargestprivatefoundationintheworld. It’sa leaderinthestrategicphilanthropymovement,applyingbusinessmanagementtechniquestoitsgivingstrategies.

In2008,thefoundationannouncedthatitwouldfocuson improving higher education outcomes for low-incomepeople.Itsmethodshavesparkedconsiderablecontroversy. The Chronicle of Higher Education (whichreceivesfundingfromGates)describedwhatitcallsthe“Gateseffect”:

“The foundation wants nothing less than tooverhaul higher education, changing how it isdelivered, financed, and regulated. To that end,Gateshaspouredhundredsofmillionsofdollarsinto getting more students to and through col-lege, in an effort to liftmoreAmericans out ofpoverty....

“Five years into an ambitious postsecondary pro-gram that is expected to last two decades, theavalancheofGatescashhaselevatedtheSeattle-basedfoundationtoacentralroleinthenationaldebateaboutreformingcollege,raisingquestionsabouttheextentofitsinfluence.

“Gates’sriseoccursasanunusualconsensushasformed among theObamaWhite House, otherprivate foundations, state lawmakers, and arange of policy advocates, all of whom havecoalesced around the goal of graduating morestudents,morequickly,andatalowercost,withlittlediscussionofthealternatives.Gateshasn’tjust jumped on the bandwagon; it has workedto build that bandwagon, in ways that are notalwaysobvious.Tokeep itsreformgoalsonthenationalagenda,Gateshasalsosupportednews-mediaorganizationsthatcoverhighereducation.

Theeffectisanechochamberoflike-mindedideas,aris-ing from research commissioned by Gates and advo-catedbystaffmemberswhomovebetweenthegovern-mentandthefoundationworld.

“Higher-education analysts who aren’t on board,forcedtocompetewiththedinofGates-financedadvocacyandjournalism,findthemselvesshutoutof the conversation. Academic researchers whohave spent years studying higher education seetheir expertisebypassed asGatesmoves aggres-sivelytodevelopstrategiesforreform.”17

Oneonline commenter complained: “It’s not somuchthat theGatesFoundationhasapointofviewofhowthingsshouldgobuttheyactlikeit’stheONLYonethatmatters,couldworkorhasresearchtobackit.”18

13

communityreceivingaid?Tothedonorswhoprovidethefunds?Tothebroaderfieldofphilanthropy?Toothersworkinginrelatedfields(e.g.,education)?Tothetaxpayers?

Asone roundtableparticipantput it,“I think that’s a way to look at this whole conversation. Account-able to whom and how?”Likemanykindsofinstitutions,foundationsseekingapublicrelationshiphavechoices.Consequently,anotherparticipantpointedout,“It’s not always a foregone conclusion that the accountability is to the public. Sometimes the accountability is to a mission.”

Butasfunderscallformoremission“impact,”theiractionsmayappearincreasinglyunilateralandunac-countabletotheirgranteeorganizations.Oneparticipantsaid:

The only way to get work is for these organizations to turn into pretzels. The authenticity of their experience on the ground and the knowledge that they have based upon all of that, becomes for naught because the foundations have decided. And I think that’s part of the reason for the reaction—for saying, “Government, do something! Make them more accountable!” Because people feel so powerless [and want] to be able to get a different kind of relationship.

Thisnotionofa“differentkindofrelationship”betweenfoundationsandbothgranteesandthecommu-nitiesthatareservedwasconsideredbyparticipantstobeatonceaworthygoal(perhapsthegoal)butdifficulttoachieve.Whatwouldbedifferent?

IV. A Relationship of Respect and ClarityResults and good process are necessary but not sufficient. Relationships alsomatter. One participantsummeditup: “It’s not just relationships, and it’s not just outcomes or metrics. It’s both.”

Another participant suggested that transparency is important in this relationship, but not the data-drivenandpotentiallyobfuscating“datadump”varietynotedabove.Whatisrequired,hesaid,istrans-parencyaboutmotives:

Perhaps you want to be more transparent to grantees, because grantees are carrying out what you want to have carried out, and so that’s a partnership, and so part of that partnership is for the grantee to understand. I’m thinking, be more transparent about your goals, for the grantee to understand what you want to achieve together.

Anotherparticipantcalled formore“engagementand interaction”between foundationsandpotentialgrantees,placingbothsidesonadifferentfooting:

Maybesomewilllosebutthere’sasensethatthere’saback-and-forth,adiscussion,andwe’reallinthisandtalkingaboutit.ImightbeabitannoyedIdidn’tget[thegrant],butatleastIsawthattherewasanengagementandtherewasarespect.That,tome,istheessenceofthis.

14

Anotheragreed:

It has to do with intent. It has to do with openness, and it’s got to do with being willing to get feedback, and being willing to be criticized, and being willing to change. And if the mindset of people is such that the intent is to engage, then that’s where accountability does become rela-tional, where they are willing to get the feedback, and engagement, including negative. Then it’s truly transparent, and it’s really clear. And that’s the difference between minimum required transparency, and real clarity.

This,then,istheconversationthatphilanthropymustjoin:Howcanweimproveourworkingrelationshipwithcitizenswhilecarryingoutourpublicmission?

Onediscussantcrystallizedthecrosscurrentsthisway:

On the one hand, it’s very difficult to define what the accountability is. . . . On the other hand, there is a deep discontent among grant recipients, including the ones that get the money, with the way in which decisions are made and the lack of humility, engagement, discussion with what’s going on.

Granteesarenottheonly“public”forphilanthropy,buttheyareperhapsthemostproximate.Thereareothers:communities,regulators,donors.Someofthesesamecrosscurrentsexistamongphilanthropy’srelationshipwiththosepublics,too.

Itwasclearfromtheseroundtablediscussionsthatphilanthropicorganizations,onceaccountableonlytotheirboardsanddonors,mustnowcometogripswithpressuresforamoreconsideredrelationshipwiththeirgranteesandthecommunitiestheyserve—withtheneedforpublicaccountabilityaswellasinstitutionalaccountability.Ifparticipantsfoundnoone-size-fits-allanswers,theydid,nevertheless,begintodefineandclarify issuesoftransparency, impact,strategy,andmission.Andtheyrecognizedthat inrespondingtoachangingworlditwillbeusefulforphilanthropytoengagewiththeseissuesasasector.

Questions Philanthropy Should Ask Itself

1.Whatareourresponsibilitiesasinstitutionswithagrowingpublicrole?

2.Howcanweaddclarityandcontexttotransparency?

3.Whatisourresponsibilityforshowingimpact?Howmuchcanorshouldwecontrol?

4.Howcanweimproveourworkingrelationshipwithcitizensanddemonstraterespect?

15

Selected ReadingsAnonymous.“TheGathering.”Chronicle of Philanthropy(October20,2013).

Barkan,Joanne.“PlutocratsatWork:HowBigPhilanthropyUnderminesDemocracy.”Dissent(Fall2013).

Brody,Evelyn,andJohnTyler.How Public Is Private Philanthropy?, 2ndEd.PhilanthropyRoundtable,2012.

Goldman,Paula.“TheDistortionRiskinImpactInvesting.”Stanford Social Innovation Review(May2012).

Johnson,Jean,JonRochkind,andSamanthaDuPont.Don’t Count Us Out.PublicAgenda/KetteringFoundation,2011.

Katz,StanleyN.“BewareBigDonors.”The Chronicle of Higher Education(March25,2012).

Kimball,Kristi,andMalkaKopell.“LettingGo.”Stanford Social Innovation Review (Spring2011).

Mathews,David.“TrendsinPhilanthropy:DemocracyasHomelandSecurity.”National Civic Review(Summer2002).

MonitorGroup.The Future of Philanthropy –executivesummary,http://www.futureofphilanthropy.org.

Rogers,Robin.“BigDonations’HiddenCosts.” Washington Post,December30,2011.

Schambra,William.“Philanthropy’sWaronCommunity.”Nonprofit Quarterly(September2012).

Sievers,Bruce.Civil Society, Philanthropy and the Commons.TuftsUniversityPress,2010(finalchapter).

Stannard-Stockton,Sean.“ExternalAccountabilityinPhilanthropy.”Tactical Philanthropy.

Tyler,John. Transparency in Philanthropy. PhilanthropyRoundtable,2013.

Participant List (Organizations given for identification purposes only)

Audrey Alvarado VicePresident,TheNonprofitRoundtable

Diana Aviv President,IndependentSector

Lucy Bernholz VisitingScholar,DavidandLucilePackardFoundation

Elizabeth T. Boris Director,TheUrbanInstitute

John R. Dedrick VicePresidentofPrograms,KetteringFoundation

Aaron Dorfman ExecutiveDirector,NationalCommitteefor ResponsivePhilanthropy

Pablo Eisenberg GeorgetownUniversityPublicPolicyInstitute

Joanne Florino SeniorVicePresidentforPublicPolicy, ThePhilanthropyRoundtable

Christopher Gates ExecutiveDirector,PhilanthropyforActiveCivic Engagement(PACE)

Cynthia Gibson CynthesisConsulting

Karen Hobert Flynn CommonCause

Richard C. Harwood President,TheHarwoodInstitute

Malka Kopell MalkaR.KopellConsulting

David Mathews President,KetteringFoundation

Chris McCleary DevelopmentDirector,SunlightFoundation

Kevin Murphy President,CouncilonFoundations(and)BerksCountyCommunityFoundation

Heather Peeler VicePresidentofPrograms,Grantmakers forEffectiveOrganizations

William A. Schambra Director,BradleyCenterforPhilanthropyandCivicRenewal,TheHudsonInstitute

Mark Schmitt Director,RooseveltInstitute

Vanessa Schnaidt DirectorofCommunications,TheFoundationCenter

Nancy Tate ExecutiveDirector,LeagueofWomenVoters

John Tyler GeneralCounsel,EwingMarionKauffmanFoundation

Dean Zerbe FormerSeniorCounselandTaxCounsel, USSenateCommitteeonFinance

16

Endnotes

1.Barkan,Joann,“PlutocratsatWork:HowBigPhilanthropyUnderminesDemocracy,”Dissent(Fall2013),http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/plutocrats-at-work-how-big-philanthropy-undermines-democracy(accessedMarch30,2014).

2.“GrantmakersandBestPractices:ATopicalResourceList,”FoundationCenter,http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/topical/practices.html(accessedMarch30,2014).

3.Schambra,William,“FoundationsOfferingtoBailOutDetroitMayRegretTheirDecision”Chronicle of Philanthropy (January24,2014),https://philanthropy.com/article/Foundations-Offering-to-Bail/144233/(accessedMarch30,2014).

4.“CriteriaforPhilanthropyatItsBest,”NationalCommitteeforResponsivePhilanthropy,http://www.ncrp.org/paib(accessedMarch30,2014). 5.Brody,Evelyn,andJohnTyler,How Public Is Private Philanthropy? Separating Reality from Myth,SecondEd.(PhilanthropyRoundtable,2012),http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/guidebook/how_public_is_private_philanthropy_2nd_edition/philanthropic_ freedom(accessedMarch30,2014).

6.“NewarkSuedToReleaseRecordsOf$100MillionFacebookGift,BookerResponds,”Huffington Post(August23,2011),http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/newark-sued-to-release-re_n_934807.html(accessedMarch30,2014).

7.Olivarez-Giles,Nathan,“Who’sGettingZuckerberg’s $1Billion?,”Wall Street Journalblog,December19,2013,http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/12/19/whos-getting-zuckerbergs-1-billion/(accessedMarch30,2014).

8.Mezzacappa,Dale,“NowakOutatWilliamPennFoundation,”Notebook,November28,2012,http://thenotebook.org/blog/125387/nowak-out-william-penn-foundation(accessedMarch30,2014).

9.“PennFoundation’sNowakUnafraidofRufflingFeathers,”Newsworks,July23,2012,http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/education/41836-penn-foundations-nowak-unafraid-of-ruffling-feathers(accessedMarch30,2012).

10.“RumorMill:WhyAreAreaNon-ProfitFolksDoingaGoddamnJigoverJeremyNowakLeavingWilliamPennFoundation?,”Philebrity.com,November29,2012,http://www.philebrity.com/2012/11/29/rumor-mill-why-are-area-non-profit-folks-doing-a-goddamn-jig-over-jeremy-nowak-leaving-william-penn-foundation/(accessedMarch30,2014).

11.Brest,Paul,“ADecadeofOutcome-OrientedPhilanthropy,”Stanford Social Innovation Review(Spring2012),http.//www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/a_decade_of_outcome_oriented_philanthropy(accessedMarch30,2014).

12.Kania,John,andMarkKramer,“CollectiveImpact,” Stanford Social Innovation Review(Winter2011),http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact(accessedMarch30,2014).

13.Schambra,William,“TheProblemofStrategicPhilanthropy,”Nonprofit Quarterly(March,2014),https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/22729-the-problem- of-strategic-philanthropy.html(accessedMarch30,2014).

14.Tyler,John,Transparency in Philanthropy: An Analysis of Accountability, Fallacy, and Volunteerism, (PhilanthropyRoundtable,March2013),http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/philanthropic_freedom/new_book_on_transparency_in_philanthropy(accessedMarch30,2014).

15.PublicAgendaandKetteringFoundation,Don’t Count us Out: How an Overreliance on Accountability Could Undermine the Public’s Confidence in Schools, Business, Government & More,(PublicAgenda,2011),http://www.publicagenda.org/media/dont-count-us-out(accessedMarch30,2014).

16.Levine,Peter,“IfYouWantCitizenstoTrustGovernment,EmpowerThemtoGovern,”The Democratic Strategist (March15,2011),http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2011/03/if_you_want_citizens_to_trust.php(accessedMarch30,2014).

17.Parry,Marc,KellyField,andBeckySupiano,“TheGatesEffect,”Chronicle of Philanthropy (July14,2013),http://chronicle.com/article/The-Gates-Effect/140323/(accessedMarch30,2014).

18.Westbrook,Melissa,“OneThoughtonGatesFoundation ...,”TheSunbreak(July16,2013),http://thesunbreak.com/ 2013/07/16/gates-foundation-to-chronicle-of-higher-education-our-critics-are-idiots/(accessedMarch30,2014).

17

About Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE)

PhilanthropyforActiveCivicEngagement,PACE,isanaffinitygroupoftheCouncilonFoundationsandservesasalearningcollaborativeoffounda-tionsdoingworkinthefieldsofcivicengagement,service,anddemocraticrenewal.EightyearsagoPACEwascreatedasthenextiterationofapreviousaffinitygroup,theGrantmakersForumforCommunityandNationalService.TheGrant-makersForumfocusedexclusivelyontheissueofserviceandafterastrategicorganizationalreview,thedecisionwasmadetobroadenthepurviewofthegrouptoincludethediversefieldofcivicengagementanddemocraticreformandrenewal.PACEisheadquarteredinWashington,DC.Tolearnmoregotowww.pacefunders.com.

PACE Leadership

President JohnR.Dedrick,KetteringFoundation

Vice President JohnM.Sirek,McCormickFoundation

TreasurerDavidO.Egner,Hudson-WebberFoundation

SecretaryKateAhern,TheCaseFoundation

Executive Director ChristopherT.Gates

About the Kettering Foundation

TheKetteringFoundationisanonprofitoperatingfoundationrootedintheAmericantraditionofcooperativeresearch.Kettering’sprimaryresearchquestionis,whatdoesittaketomakedemocracyworkasitshould?Kettering’sresearchisdistinctivebecauseitisconductedfromtheperspectiveofcitizensandfocusesonwhatpeoplecandocollectivelytoaddressproblemsaffectingtheirlives,theircommunities,andtheirnation.Thefoundationseekstoidentifyandaddressthechallengestomakingdemocracyworkasitshouldthroughinterrelatedprogramareasthatfocusoncitizens,communities,andinstitutions.Thefoundationcollaborateswithanextensivenetworkofcommunitygroups,professionalassociations,researchers,scholars,andcitizensaroundtheworld.Establishedin1927byinventorCharlesF.Kettering,thefoundationisa501(c)(3) organizationthatdoesnotmakegrantsbutengagesinjointresearchwithothers.

About the Author

Brad Rourke isaprogramofficerattheKetteringFoundation.Hisworkincludesstudiesofnamingandframingissuesinpublictermsandhowpeoplemakedecisionsandworktogetheronsharedchallengesincommunities.RourkeisexecutiveeditoroftheNationalIssuesForumsissuebooksaswellasotherissuebooksproducedforpublicdeliberation.