Will foundations use their freedom to help alleviate the economy’s pain? (Part II)
posted on: Wednesday, August 24, 2011
by Niki Jagpal
Yesterday, I blogged about whether foundations would heed Michael Edwards’s call to use their freedom and provide significant core support to community-based groups. But what would these foundations be funding? Edwards discusses deeply entrenched systems that are unsustainable and ineffective at resolving social problems, noting that:
“[…] it will take more than money to solve the deeper, structural problems that lie at the heart of the American dilemma, especially the growing mismatch between what we want from the ‘good society’ and what our current economic and political systems can deliver.”
Edwards is talking about systems that don’t work. He’s writing about institutions that we have come to take for granted in their current form without acknowledging inherent inequities that keep certain populations from democratic or participatory parity. He’s talking about the need for systemic reform if we want to deal with the myriad problems we face as a country. And he’s calling on foundations to fund the groups with the most potential for doing so, i.e., community-based and organizing groups. He states that:
“A key lesson of history is that it is society’s capacity for innovation that matters most, not any particular innovation at any particular time, and these capacities have to be distributed as broadly as possible throughout the population. With grant makers’ fetish for the “next new thing,” this is a lesson that they still must learn.”
Edwards is talking about diffusing power and building capacity among all our nations’ communities to be part of the solutions to the seemingly insurmountable problems we face. But how would grantmakers do that? By following his advice to provide community-level groups with substantial core support and empowering them to help each of us become an agent of change and emerge stronger as a country.
Indeed, he argues that social transformation requires a critical analysis of those normalized institutions and practices that have led us to this economic crisis. Think about it – if the ways that our country’s infrastructure is built were sufficient to sustain us, would we even be having these discussions? And, as Edwards notes, the growing distance between foundations and the public is a powerful reason for grantmakers to demonstrate a responsive kind of leadership that actually takes community needs for structural change into account. As he explains, throwing money at the problem is insufficient:
“Too much giving by America’s foundations focuses on extending participation in the systems we have already, not realizing that these systems are themselves unsustainable or otherwise incapable of resolving deep-rooted differences and problems. Transformation is what we really need, and who better to support it than foundations, the one institution in society that can take the longest view and the biggest risks, freed from the electoral and financial cycles?”
Put differently, institutional philanthropy is supporting a network of systems that is ineffective, essentially perpetuating an inequitable and unsustainable socio-political environment. Is that healthy for our democracy? I don’t think so. Social transformation is the key in his statement above – it’s what we need if our sector and our democracy are to emerge from the crossroads we confront.
The question is whether funders will be willing to let go of the “next new thing” and the “rates of return” Edwards mentions and take the risks needed for us to prevail. Now is the time for bold action and risk-taking to build social capital and individual agency.
Do you think that philanthropy will transform itself and demonstrate leadership as Edwards asks?
Niki Jagpal is director of research and policy at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).Labels: advocacy and organizing, economic crisis, Michael Edwards, nonprofit advocacy, philanthropic freedom, Social justice philanthropy, social transformation, systems change
Yesterday, I blogged about whether foundations would heed Michael Edwards’s call to use their freedom and provide significant core support to community-based groups. But what would these foundations be funding? Edwards discusses deeply entrenched systems that are unsustainable and ineffective at resolving social problems, noting that:
“[…] it will take more than money to solve the deeper, structural problems that lie at the heart of the American dilemma, especially the growing mismatch between what we want from the ‘good society’ and what our current economic and political systems can deliver.”
Edwards is talking about systems that don’t work. He’s writing about institutions that we have come to take for granted in their current form without acknowledging inherent inequities that keep certain populations from democratic or participatory parity. He’s talking about the need for systemic reform if we want to deal with the myriad problems we face as a country. And he’s calling on foundations to fund the groups with the most potential for doing so, i.e., community-based and organizing groups. He states that:
“A key lesson of history is that it is society’s capacity for innovation that matters most, not any particular innovation at any particular time, and these capacities have to be distributed as broadly as possible throughout the population. With grant makers’ fetish for the “next new thing,” this is a lesson that they still must learn.”
Edwards is talking about diffusing power and building capacity among all our nations’ communities to be part of the solutions to the seemingly insurmountable problems we face. But how would grantmakers do that? By following his advice to provide community-level groups with substantial core support and empowering them to help each of us become an agent of change and emerge stronger as a country.
Indeed, he argues that social transformation requires a critical analysis of those normalized institutions and practices that have led us to this economic crisis. Think about it – if the ways that our country’s infrastructure is built were sufficient to sustain us, would we even be having these discussions? And, as Edwards notes, the growing distance between foundations and the public is a powerful reason for grantmakers to demonstrate a responsive kind of leadership that actually takes community needs for structural change into account. As he explains, throwing money at the problem is insufficient:
“Too much giving by America’s foundations focuses on extending participation in the systems we have already, not realizing that these systems are themselves unsustainable or otherwise incapable of resolving deep-rooted differences and problems. Transformation is what we really need, and who better to support it than foundations, the one institution in society that can take the longest view and the biggest risks, freed from the electoral and financial cycles?”
Put differently, institutional philanthropy is supporting a network of systems that is ineffective, essentially perpetuating an inequitable and unsustainable socio-political environment. Is that healthy for our democracy? I don’t think so. Social transformation is the key in his statement above – it’s what we need if our sector and our democracy are to emerge from the crossroads we confront.
The question is whether funders will be willing to let go of the “next new thing” and the “rates of return” Edwards mentions and take the risks needed for us to prevail. Now is the time for bold action and risk-taking to build social capital and individual agency.
Do you think that philanthropy will transform itself and demonstrate leadership as Edwards asks?
Niki Jagpal is director of research and policy at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).
Labels: advocacy and organizing, economic crisis, Michael Edwards, nonprofit advocacy, philanthropic freedom, Social justice philanthropy, social transformation, systems change
posted by Niki Jagpal at
2:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home