Dueling data: How much do education grantmakers fund advocacy?
posted on: Thursday, December 09, 2010
By Niki Jagpal
Two recent reports, one issued by Grantmakers for Education (GFE) and the other by NCRP offer radically different pictures of grantmaking priorities among education funders.
In Confronting Systemic Inequity in Education, NCRP’s analysis of education philanthropy across the nation found that some 2 percent of education grants were designated for advocacy, organizing and community engagement. In GFE’s annual report Benchmarking 2010: Trends in Education Philanthropy, members reported funding substantially advocacy at 72 percent, and engaging in the policymaking process by providing grants for this work, indicating a new development in the way that education philanthropy is practiced. In fact, GFE’s survey of members found that “grants to influence public policy or build public will for policy changes are part of the portfolio for 70 percent of survey respondents this year – up from 60 percent in last year’s sample – and 35 percent of 2010 respondents plan to increase their engagement in this arena over the next two years.” (p. 14).
So how can observers and practitioners of philanthropy reconcile these significantly different findings from NCRP and GFE? Here are some contextual issues to consider when addressing the issue of the contrasting and seemingly contradictory findings:
1. Sample size. GFE surveyed its members to produce this report; as stated on their site, GFE’s membership comprises just shy of 250 foundations. That’s a relatively small but valid sample to draw conclusions on trends about GFE members. The larger issue, however, of how education grantmakers in the United States overall prioritize advocacy funding is better answered by looking at a larger sample size from the Foundation Center, which we used for our own report. Is it possible that GFE’s membership is leading by example and more responsive than their non-member education funder peers? I’d think they are; we analyzed foundations that paid out at least $1 million in grants for education in the time period of 2006-2008 and drew our conclusions based on a sample of some 700 foundations. In addition to the GFE sample being small, all the information is self-reported, a phenomenon that almost always leads to upward bias in the findings. In discussions since we released the NCRP report, we have found that some grantmakers perceive they are funding much more advocacy than the data suggests is true.
2. The Socialization Effect. GFE’s benchmarking survey delved into the grantmaking priorities within public policy, asking members to respond to six separate types of work they fund. Advocacy ranked second with 72 percent of GFE members stating that they support it. The report is honest and notes that this is a significant change for foundations that have tended to be risk-averse and shied away from funding advocacy in the past. Put differently, there is likely a socialization effect occurring among GFE members in which advocacy is becoming normalized and part of the public discourse. This is a positive development and one that I hope would expand to the broader field of education grantmaking in our country.
3. Data Analysis. The previous point relates directly to how NCRP does its analysis of support for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement. Because of the lack of accurate measures to gauge philanthropic support of this important work that keeps our democracy vibrant, we use the proxy of social justice grants to get a sense of where grantmaker priorities lie regarding systemic reform. So any education grant that was classified as a social justice grant was included in our analysis. Are there education grants that meet the criteria for social justice but didn’t get included in our sample? I’d assume there are many but the onus for correcting that lies with the foundations that provide their information to the Center (more on this below)
4. Data Coding. There are more than likely many education grantmakers nationally that actually do meet our benchmarks of providing at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of vulnerable populations and 25 percent for social justice-related education work. But if a foundation doesn’t code its grants appropriately when submitting information to the Foundation Center, its grants will undoubtedly not be included. In short, the stark differences between GFE’s and NCRP’s findings point to the need for better data about education grantmaking.
The GFE report gives me a lot of hope that this group’s members are leading their non-member peers by example. As Dori Jacobson of the Rodel Foundation of Delaware states in the GFE report, “Today, funders are more receptive supporting advocacy, communications and grass-roots organizing, we have a clearer understanding of what’s legally possible to change public policy, and frankly, many of us have a lot less patience with status quo in education reform.” (p. 15). This is exactly the kind of recommendation that authors Kevin Welner and Amy Farley make in the NCRP report – that to truly make a difference at the systemic level in education reform, grantmakers must fund heavily advocacy and organizing and invest in underserved populations.
I’m also heartened that GFE members are moving toward increased collaboration, supporting their grassroots grantee partners in advocating for reform and, making positive contributions to the field when it comes to looking at issues holistically instead of in silos. These grantmakers are demonstrating a systems approach in their grantmaking – not breaking a problem down into its constituent parts but looking at the intersection of homelessness, health and other indices of human development along with education. Each report’s data leads to differential conclusions about trends in education philanthropy, but it’s clear that NCRP and GFE share the same values of contributing to long-term systemic reform of our education system, which will have positive effects on all of us. I hope that other education funders heed the clarion call of their GFE counterparts and consider seriously rethinking their grantmaking priorities.
Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at NCRPLabels: benchmarking, data analysis, Education Philanthropy, Foundation Center, Grantmakers for Education, High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, social justice, systems theory, vulnerable populations
Two recent reports, one issued by Grantmakers for Education (GFE) and the other by NCRP offer radically different pictures of grantmaking priorities among education funders.
In Confronting Systemic Inequity in Education, NCRP’s analysis of education philanthropy across the nation found that some 2 percent of education grants were designated for advocacy, organizing and community engagement. In GFE’s annual report Benchmarking 2010: Trends in Education Philanthropy, members reported funding substantially advocacy at 72 percent, and engaging in the policymaking process by providing grants for this work, indicating a new development in the way that education philanthropy is practiced. In fact, GFE’s survey of members found that “grants to influence public policy or build public will for policy changes are part of the portfolio for 70 percent of survey respondents this year – up from 60 percent in last year’s sample – and 35 percent of 2010 respondents plan to increase their engagement in this arena over the next two years.” (p. 14).
So how can observers and practitioners of philanthropy reconcile these significantly different findings from NCRP and GFE? Here are some contextual issues to consider when addressing the issue of the contrasting and seemingly contradictory findings:
1. Sample size. GFE surveyed its members to produce this report; as stated on their site, GFE’s membership comprises just shy of 250 foundations. That’s a relatively small but valid sample to draw conclusions on trends about GFE members. The larger issue, however, of how education grantmakers in the United States overall prioritize advocacy funding is better answered by looking at a larger sample size from the Foundation Center, which we used for our own report. Is it possible that GFE’s membership is leading by example and more responsive than their non-member education funder peers? I’d think they are; we analyzed foundations that paid out at least $1 million in grants for education in the time period of 2006-2008 and drew our conclusions based on a sample of some 700 foundations. In addition to the GFE sample being small, all the information is self-reported, a phenomenon that almost always leads to upward bias in the findings. In discussions since we released the NCRP report, we have found that some grantmakers perceive they are funding much more advocacy than the data suggests is true.
2. The Socialization Effect. GFE’s benchmarking survey delved into the grantmaking priorities within public policy, asking members to respond to six separate types of work they fund. Advocacy ranked second with 72 percent of GFE members stating that they support it. The report is honest and notes that this is a significant change for foundations that have tended to be risk-averse and shied away from funding advocacy in the past. Put differently, there is likely a socialization effect occurring among GFE members in which advocacy is becoming normalized and part of the public discourse. This is a positive development and one that I hope would expand to the broader field of education grantmaking in our country.
3. Data Analysis. The previous point relates directly to how NCRP does its analysis of support for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement. Because of the lack of accurate measures to gauge philanthropic support of this important work that keeps our democracy vibrant, we use the proxy of social justice grants to get a sense of where grantmaker priorities lie regarding systemic reform. So any education grant that was classified as a social justice grant was included in our analysis. Are there education grants that meet the criteria for social justice but didn’t get included in our sample? I’d assume there are many but the onus for correcting that lies with the foundations that provide their information to the Center (more on this below)
4. Data Coding. There are more than likely many education grantmakers nationally that actually do meet our benchmarks of providing at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of vulnerable populations and 25 percent for social justice-related education work. But if a foundation doesn’t code its grants appropriately when submitting information to the Foundation Center, its grants will undoubtedly not be included. In short, the stark differences between GFE’s and NCRP’s findings point to the need for better data about education grantmaking.
The GFE report gives me a lot of hope that this group’s members are leading their non-member peers by example. As Dori Jacobson of the Rodel Foundation of Delaware states in the GFE report, “Today, funders are more receptive supporting advocacy, communications and grass-roots organizing, we have a clearer understanding of what’s legally possible to change public policy, and frankly, many of us have a lot less patience with status quo in education reform.” (p. 15). This is exactly the kind of recommendation that authors Kevin Welner and Amy Farley make in the NCRP report – that to truly make a difference at the systemic level in education reform, grantmakers must fund heavily advocacy and organizing and invest in underserved populations.
I’m also heartened that GFE members are moving toward increased collaboration, supporting their grassroots grantee partners in advocating for reform and, making positive contributions to the field when it comes to looking at issues holistically instead of in silos. These grantmakers are demonstrating a systems approach in their grantmaking – not breaking a problem down into its constituent parts but looking at the intersection of homelessness, health and other indices of human development along with education. Each report’s data leads to differential conclusions about trends in education philanthropy, but it’s clear that NCRP and GFE share the same values of contributing to long-term systemic reform of our education system, which will have positive effects on all of us. I hope that other education funders heed the clarion call of their GFE counterparts and consider seriously rethinking their grantmaking priorities.
Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at NCRP
Labels: benchmarking, data analysis, Education Philanthropy, Foundation Center, Grantmakers for Education, High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, social justice, systems theory, vulnerable populations
posted by Niki Jagpal at
10:05 AM
1 Comments:
On behalf of Grantmakers for Education, let me say I hope it doesn't come to pistols at ten paces--although the data seem contradictory on the surface, Niki's analysis highlights some reasons for the difference.
Our sample size was smaller, and self-selecting, inasmuch as GFE members join our network specifically to hone their capacity for being strategic and effective in their funding. Increasingly, they see policy engagement, including advocacy work--once a third-rail for many grantmakers--as integral to achieving more widescale improvement across our education systems. While we hope their thoughtfulness will influence the field more fully, we don't present them as representative of the entire sector, by any stretch.
And, of course, "advocacy" may be in the eye of the beholder; for that matter, "social justice" might too. Philanthropic organizations lack common terminology for much of what they do, which makes it difficult to measure the extent to which those organizations are undertaking a similar strategy.
But at the end of the day, GFE and NCRP both believe that excellence and equity are inseparable goals for America's education systems, and we're both working to help funders move toward those goals.
By
Grantmakers for Education, at 5:41 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home