posted on: Thursday, January 26, 2012

By Niki Jagpal

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation announced recently that it will grant $5 million to the Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Early Learning Neighborhood Collaborative (ELNC). ELNC is “vested in changing the current reality of vulnerable children. In order to create this change, ELNC is planning and designing an intentional preschool service system aimed at providing, expanding and sustaining the capacity of high quality early care and education programs in the vulnerable neighborhoods of Grand Rapids.” Kellogg was an early investor in ELNC and its work focused on developing a service system in underserved communities that brought high-quality early child care and education programs to these neighborhoods.

More than 80 percent of kindergarten-aged children enter the school system without adequate preparation. As ELNC’s executive director Nkechy Ezeh states, “The social, physical and cognitive development of a child is negatively impacted when, beginning with their prenatal experience and continuing through early childhood, they are surrounded by an environment of poverty.” Ezeh is articulating the intersection of multiple constraints that keep the majority of some 5,000 children in ELNC’s targeted neighborhoods which work together to prevent them from having what Kellogg program officer Nadia Brigham refers to as structured learning opportunities. These children are predominantly non-white; live in poor neighborhoods; cannot access early learning, and; as such are kept from equality of opportunity.

ELNC demonstrates the seemingly abstract concept of targeted universalism in action. The initiative targets the poorest and highest need neighborhoods to have greater impact and improve educational outcomes for the targeted group as well as all children. As noted in NCRP’s report for education funders, unless systemic inequity is challenged on the structural and policy levels it is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle that will continue to keep all our children from equal access to high-quality education. Moreover, as also stated in that report, empowering those most impacted by structural inequality to advocate for themselves is imperative if we want to see lasting positive changes to our educational system. “This collaborative turns the paradigm upside down in terms of leadership and advocacy and empowerment around a community – the neighborhoods making decisions regarding their children,” states Brigham.

A recent report by NCRP summarizing findings from our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project (GCIP) shows an aggregate return on investments in advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement across a range of issues of $115 for each dollar invested in these ways. Kudos to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for leading by example and demonstrating to their peers that not only is targeting within grantmaking strategic, it is also effective and increases impact. And congratulations and good luck to the ELNC as it confronts systemic inequity, challenges power and empowers vulnerable communities. Surely all of Grand Rapids’ young schoolchildren will benefit from this tactical grant. Imagine how philanthropy could contribute to lasting systemic changes to our education system if this approach were taken to scale nationally.

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

posted on: Tuesday, January 24, 2012

By Kevin Laskowski


NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project documented more than $26.6 billion in benefits for taxpayers and communities in 13 states. A new summary of our work finds that, for every dollar grantmakers and other donors invested in policy and civic engagement, communities reaped $115 in benefit. But some are still skeptical of results such as these:


Some philanthropy experts say the estimates are not a reliable measure of what charities can achieve. William Schambra, director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at the Hudson Institute says it’s too hard to say that it was precisely the work of the charities that led to the policy changes.


“Any time you try to relate a very specific cause to a very large effect, you’re running into trouble,” Mr. Schambra says. “The notion that a foundation investing X amount of dollars led to this incredible piece of legislation overlooks a few other things, like most of politics, most of economics, and most of culture."


I agree that it can be difficult to attribute large, legislative changes to a single nonprofit or grant. In fact, many of the wins we documented were won only through groups working in coalitions year after year. We encourage funders to give general operating and multi-year support and to fund coalition work for that reason.


But, despite my own initial skepticism, I was personally inspired by the work of groups such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness – Minnesota (NAMI Minnesota). NAMI Minnesota works to improve the lives of adults and children with mental illness through education, support and advocacy, training its constituents to advocate on their own behalf and on behalf of their families. The organization received the 2009 Minnesota Nonprofit Mission Award for Advocacy, in part for efforts described in NCRP's report on the impact of these strategies in Minnesota.






Among other victories, their work and the work of their partners secured more than $120 million in improvements to Minnesota’s state mental health system. That figure doesn’t count the total value of what those changes will do for thousands of Minnesotans in the years to come, nor does it capture all the many tiny victories for human rights and dignity that this figure represents.


I don’t think anyone believes that Lynne Peterson, Sue Abderholden, Sue Hanson, Catherine Roach and Deborah Erickson – featured in the video above - are the only reasons why Minnesota’s health system is better than it once was. I’m sure other factors played a part. I wouldn’t want to overlook them.


But these women were among the reasons, and I wouldn’t want to overlook them either.


Check out NCRP's Directory of Impacts. There are stories like theirs behind every entry.


It would be misleading indeed to tell grantmakers, if you invest X in organizing, you will get Y in benefit. We all know it’s not that simple, and there are no guarantees in this kind of work. All grantmaking, even funding service provision, involves some risk. But it would also be wrong to say that NAMI Minnesota had nothing to do with these incredible changes.


Schambra himself understands this. It would have been misleading to tell the trustees of the Bradley Foundation that its public policy investments in welfare reform were guaranteed success. But it would also be wrong to say that Schambra, a former Bradley program officer, had nothing whatsoever to do with welfare reform in Wisconsin or that the Bradley Foundation had no role in the resurgence of the conservative movement.


Sadly, I think critics are overlooking the kinds of victories the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project examined. We deliberately narrowed our scope to organizations working with and on behalf of lower-income communities, communities of color, women and girls, LGBTQ citizens, persons with mental illness and other marginalized groups.


Schambra would have us attribute documented wins to the prevailing political, economic and cultural winds. He forgets that, for these groups, those prevailing winds are often toxic and unbreathable. The prevailing winds shred young sails they might once have filled. The prevailing winds destroy homes and blow away livelihoods. It is precisely those winds that these groups were trying to change. Neither NCRP nor our nonprofit groups overlooked politics, economics or culture. We cannot. It is our polity, our economy and our culture that we hope to improve. If Lynn, Sue and others had not spoken out, if funders had not supported them in their efforts, these wins would not have happened. The prevailing winds would have seen to that. Can we not – should we not – then attribute these billions in wins to nonprofit efforts?


Ultimately, Schambra is right: any time grantmakers try to relate very specific causes (ordinary citizens) to a very large effect (the laws by which they will be governed) through advocacy, organizing and civic engagement, they will be “running into trouble.” That trouble is called democracy, and it’s a terrific kind of trouble for NCRP and philanthropists of every kind to encourage.


Kevin Laskowski is research and policy associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2012

By Meredith Brodbeck

Below are some of this past week's notable news and postings on philanthropy and nonprofits:

• "Stop and Frisk": A Road to Disaster
  By David Jones | The Huffington Post
• Protest Sapped of Cash
  By Jessica Firger | The Wall Street Journal
• Giving Grows Among Communities of Color
  Philanthropy Journal
• Young People on Nonprofit Boards? Good Idea, but Know the Laws
  By Rick Cohen | The Nonprofit Quarterly

Meredith Brodbeck is the communications associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Wednesday, January 11, 2012

By Kevin Laskowski


The Chronicle of Philanthropy has a fine Outlook 2012, complete with challenges, donors and nonprofits to watch and New Year’s resolutions for the field:


Great people’s movements are demanding new social contracts all over the world. The Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and ongoing calls for social justice have inspired millions, yet U.S. philanthropy has remained largely sidelined and silent. We, in the foundation sector, resolve to stop being as irrelevant as we have been for so long. Because history will not absolve us, we commit to taking a hard look at the root causes of ineffectiveness and addressing our myriad shortcomings as a sector. - Albert Ruesga, president, Greater New Orleans Foundation


May 2012 be a year of courage for philanthropy and the nonprofit sector. We face an extraordinary assault on programs serving the most vulnerable in our society, voting rights we long took for granted, and harsh anti-immigrant policies that undermine our values. Now is the time for our sector to find its voice and support advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement. - Deepak Bhargava, executive director, Center for Community Change


Philanthropy must adapt to the growing diversity of donors, activists, and communities. We need to work with and support the new global majority—people of color—to create the next generation of leaders, overhaul our failing educational and health systems, and conquer pervasive structural racism. - Melissa Bradley, chief executive, the Tides Foundation


If I had one resolution for the sector, it would be: increase funding for community organizing among lower-income communities and communities of the “Emerging Majority.” 


I’m sure you’re shocked to hear this from someone here at NCRP. However, one thing we saw in 2011 and we will likely continue to see in 2012 is the robust participation of some philanthropists in important public policy debates. Bill Gates, Eli Broad and others have played a large role in shaping the discussions about education reform efforts. A number of conservative philanthropies, such as the Koch brothers and the Bradley Foundation, among others, have had an outsized influence on national debates for some time. Some see this involvement as a pernicious force in our democracy, but my concern is not that the wealthy participate in politics. My concern is that they’re increasingly the only ones who do or can.


“Civic and political association and the organized exercise of influence have increased for the elite and have all but collapsed for the bottom half, even for the bottom three-quarters,” writes Robert Kuttner. Even as tremendous inequality and lagging economic mobility garner renewed national attention and concern, he notes, participatory inequality is equally important. He cautions:


Political disengagement on the part of less affluent Americans is circular and cumulative. Disconnection from politics leads to disaffection with government and doubt that government policies can make a positive difference, which leaves the field to elites. In October, a New York Times/CBS poll showed that a record 89 percent of Americans believed that government could not be trusted to do the right thing most of the time. That view, in turn, leads to further desertion from civic life. Less affluent people are more reliant on public institutions than more affluent ones are. They need to be politically involved to take back government from elites, so that government can once again provide opportunity and security and remedy economic inequality. Thus, participatory imbalance reinforces the deepening class divide.


Philanthropy can be a force that reaches across divisions of class or one that deepens them. Grantmaking remains a means for the wealthy to act on their values, and sometimes, if not often, that translates into engaging in public policy. If only philanthropy spoke up more often - and for ordinary people! I do not begrudge a philanthropist acting on his or her values, so long as that philanthropy empowers other people to act on theirs—and that is what is most needed in 2012. 


Kevin Laskowski is research and policy associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Tuesday, January 10, 2012

By Niki Jagpal

Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, has a disturbing piece on the Huffington Post titled Poverty 2.0. In it, she relates the story of the economic turmoil confronted by one family, the Barretts, in New Orleans. As she notes, that this story is unfortunately a narrative that applies to so many hard working Americans who were on their way to moving into the middle class and have fallen behind over the last few years.

What is perhaps most distressing are the statistics which she cites: The Census Bureau released in November its first report using a new and more accurate measure of poverty, The Supplemental Poverty Measure. It gauges poverty by analyzing common household expenses including food, shelter and utilities and adjusts the figures regionally. It also accounts for some government assistance in calculating income such as housing tax subsidies and the earned income tax credit. Using this measure, a whopping 56.7 percent of our children fall under the category of poor or low income compared to 43.9 percent using the official measure. Edelman Wright writes: “While there is a substantial rise in the number of children considered low-income, the child poverty rate itself was actually lower using the new measure. This is important because it shows the effectiveness of key programs in lifting children out of poverty especially child and family nutrition programs, housing subsidies, and the earned-income tax credit. These programs had the largest positive impact on children’s lives.”

Government spending and capacity clearly dwarf those of philanthropy and the nonprofit sector but there is a good rationale for grantmakers to find ways in which to address this appalling situation. That the majority of our youth are not financially secure is a serious cause for concern; if our young are never provided the opportunities to advance their lot, how can our country ever expect to compete in the globalizing economy? In addition to the moral frame under which this situation is unacceptable, there are clear economic and other implications of the status quo. Any foundation that cares about our future as a society and country should consider seriously investing in programs that have the same kinds of positive impacts that the public sector programs Edelman Wright references do. Be it service provision or advocacy on behalf of poor and lower-income children, it is not only the right thing to do but imperative if we are to ever emerge from the economic crisis we confront today.

More than 100 grantmakers of all types have voluntarily pledged to provide at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the benefit of marginalized communities and at least 25 percent of their grant dollars for advocacy and community organizing that serves a social justice purpose. Surely the story of the Barretts is one that should motivate your institution to consider doing the same.

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