Transparency Talk

Category: "Advocacy" (11 posts)

What Will You #OpenForGood?
July 13, 2017

Janet Camarena is director of transparency initiatives at Foundation Center.  This post is part of the Glasspockets’ #OpenForGood series in partnership with the Fund for Shared Insight. The series explores new tools, promising practices, and inspiring examples showing how some foundations are opening up the knowledge that they are learning for the benefit of the larger philanthropic sector. Contribute your comments on each post and share the series using #OpenForGood.

Janet Camarena Photo

This week, Foundation Center is launching our new #OpenForGood campaign, designed to encourage better knowledge sharing practices among foundations.  Three Foundation Center services—Glasspockets, IssueLab, and GrantCraft are leveraging their platforms to advance the idea that philanthropy can best live up to its promise of serving the public good by openly and consistently sharing what it’s learning from its work.  Glasspockets is featuring advice and insights from “knowledge sharing champions” in philanthropy on an ongoing #OpenForGood blog series; IssueLab has launched a special Results platform allowing users to learn from a collective knowledge base of foundation evaluations; and a forthcoming GrantCraft Guide on open knowledge practices is in development.

Although this campaign is focused on helping and inspiring foundations to use new and emerging technologies to better collectively learn, it is also in some ways rooted in the history that is Foundation Center’s origin story.

OFG-twitter

A Short History

Sixty years ago, Foundation Center was established to provide transparency for a field in jeopardy of losing its philanthropic freedom due to McCarthy Era accusations that gained traction in the absence of any openness whatsoever about foundation priorities, activities, or processes.  Not one, but two congressional commissions were formed to investigate foundations committing alleged “un-American activities.”  As a result of these congressional inquiries, which spanned several years during the 1950s, Foundation Center was established to provide transparency in a field that had nearly lost everything due to its opacity. 

“The solution and call to action here is actually a simple one – if you learn something, share something.”

I know our Transparency Talk audience is most likely familiar with this story since the Glasspockets name stems from this history when Carnegie Corporation Chair Russell Leffingwell said, “The foundation should have glass pockets…” during his congressional testimony, describing a vision for a field that would be so open as to allow anyone to have a look inside the workings and activities of philanthropy.  But it seems important to repeat that story now in the context of new technologies that can facilitate greater openness.

Working Collectively Smarter

Now that we live in a time when most of us walk around with literal glass in our pockets, and use these devices to connect us to the outside world, it is surprising that only 10% of foundations have a website, which means 90% of the field is missing discovery from the outside world.  But having websites would really just bring foundations into the latter days of the 20th century--#OpenForGood aims to bring them into the present day by encouraging foundations to openly share their knowledge in the name of working collectively smarter.

What if you could know what others know, rather than constantly replicating experiments and pilots that have already been tried and tested elsewhere?  Sadly, the common practice of foundations keeping knowledge in large file cabinets or hard drives only a few can access means that there are no such shortcuts. The solution and call to action here is actually a simple one—if you learn something, share something

In foundations, learning typically takes the form of evaluation and monitoring, so we are specifically asking foundations to upload all of your published reports from 2015 and 2016 to the new IssueLab: Results platform, so that anyone can build on the lessons you’ve learned, whether inside or outside of your networks. Foundations that upload their published evaluations will receive an #OpenForGood badge to demonstrate their commitment to creating a community of shared learning.

Calls to Action

But #OpenForGood foundations don’t just share evaluations, they also:

  • Open themselves to ideas and lessons learned by others by searching shared repositories, like those at IssueLab as part of their own research process;
  • They use Glasspockets to compare their foundation's transparency practices to their peers, add their profile, and help encourage openness by sharing their experiences and experiments with transparency here on Transparency Talk;
  • They use GrantCraft to hear what their colleagues have to say, then add their voice to the conversation. If they have an insight, they share it!

Share Your Photos

“#OpenForGood foundations share their images with us so we can show the collective power of philanthropic openness, not just in words, but images. ”

And finally, #OpenForGood foundations share their images with us so we can show the collective power of philanthropic openness, not just in words, but images.  We would like to evolve the #OpenForGood campaign over time to become a powerful and meaningful way for foundations to open up your work and impact a broader audience than you could reach on your own. Any campaign about openness and transparency should, after all, use real images rather than staged or stock photography. 

So, we invite you to share any high resolution photographs that feature the various dimensions of your foundation's work.  Ideally, we would like to capture images of the good you are doing out in the world, outside of the four walls of your foundation, and of course, we would give appropriate credit to participating foundations and your photographers.  The kinds of images we are seeking include people collaborating in teams, open landscapes, and images that convey the story of your work and who benefits. Let us know if you have images to share that may now benefit from this extended reach and openness framing by contacting openforgood@foundationcenter.org.

What will you #OpenForGood?

--Janet Camarena

The Force Was Strong With Her: How Carrie Fisher Struck Back By Opening Up
December 29, 2016

Just like Princess Leia, she was passionate, fierce and fearless. As we grapple with the loss of Carrie Fisher, who died this week following a heart attack, we reflect on her legacy of openness in the service of change.

Fisher will forever be remembered as Princess Leia from a galaxy far, far away.  Beyond the Star Wars franchise, Fisher was also an accomplished novelist, screenwriter, and a mental health advocate.  As the daughter of Hollywood power couple – actress Debbie Fisher and singer Eddie Fisher – she was born into the public eye, which may have prepared her both for stardom, and her capacity to go public with what many would consider a private matter.  

“Princess Leia would have gotten through being bipolar and an addict in the same way I did,” Fisher said in an NPR interview.

Carrie Fisher - SW CinemaBlend
Carrie Fisher starred as Princess Leia in the Star Wars franchise.  Source: CinemaBlend

Sharing a Private Struggle

Fisher, 60, candidly shared her struggles with depression and bipolar disorder in media interviews and also in her books.  It may have been cathartic for Fisher to ink the semi-autobiographical novel Postcards from The Edge and her comedy show, “Wishful Drinking,” which she eventually turned into a memoir.  Her new autobiography, The Princess Diarist, has become a bestseller.

“Fisher’s tireless advocacy efforts are a shining example of how high-profile openness and transparency can lead to increased awareness, empathy, and change.”

Although most would shy away from opening up about mental illness, rather than avoid personal issues, the actress showed great courage in coming forward and using her celebrity as a platform to advocate for mental health and substance abuse awareness.  Throughout her life, she openly discussed her substance abuse struggles and treatment, and hospitalization.

The witty author was featured on the Emmy Award-winning BBC documentary The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive, which destigmatized mental illness.  Fisher was among several celebrities who shared their experiences of wrestling with health and medical conditions while living in a public spotlight on the Discovery Health Channel show Medical Profile.

Fisher’s tireless advocacy efforts are a shining example of how high-profile openness and transparency can lead to increased awareness, empathy, and change.  Her voice contributed to greater public awareness of mental health and substance abuse issues, emphasized the challenge of stigma related to illness and treatment, as well as the need for increased access to programs and services.

Carrie FisherSeveral organizations recognized the mental health advocate for her efforts.  In 2016, Fisher won an Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism for her “forthright activism and outspokenness about addiction, mental illness and agnosticism have advanced public discourse on these issues with creativity and empathy.”  In 2012, Fisher won the Kim Peek Award for Disability in Media.

In an advice column for The Guardian, Fisher responded to a request for advice on how to live with bipolar disorder.  “We have been given a challenging illness, and there is no other option than to meet those challenges.  Think of it as an opportunity to be heroic – not ‘I survived living in Mosul during an attack’ heroic, but an emotional survival.  An opportunity to be a good example to others who might share our disorder,” Fisher advised. “That’s why it’s important to find a community – however small – of other bipolar people to share experiences and find comfort in the similarities.”

And that’s what Fisher did.  She devoted her high-profile platform to raising awareness, changing attitudes and expanding support for mental health. 

We’ll miss you, Carrie Fisher.  May the Force be with you.

--Melissa Moy

Glasspockets Find: Philanthropic Leaders Join Ban the Box Movement to Address Inequality
October 26, 2016

(Melissa Moy is special projects associate for Glasspockets.)

A growing number of foundations are becoming more comfortable taking public stands on issues, rather than just offering behind the scenes support. One recent example is the Ban the Box movement, whereby public and nonprofit employers, and more recently foundation leaders are taking a public stand designed to draw attention to the employment discrimination of people with arrest and conviction records.

2016-10-26Ford Foundation CEO Darren Walker is one such foundation leader, who recently highlighted Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change, and his video promoting the Ban the Box movement.  The video is part of Ford Foundation’s #InequalityIs campaign, which engages the public to share its thoughts around inequality, from a motel housekeeper’s perspective about immigration to writer/activist Gloria Steinman’s on gender inequality and reproductive rights.   

Foundations are generally known for their role and leadership in funding and supporting nonprofits and organizations that address societal and socioeconomic issues, and not known to be on the front lines of movements themselves.  Perhaps the success of the Civil Marriage Collaborative is creating a change in awareness - that when foundations are visible partners, they can actually accelerate change.

“When foundations are visible partners, they can actually accelerate change.”

Through the Ban the Box Philanthropy Challenge, 42 foundations are using their influence and communications expertise to spur movement and action to eliminate barriers to employment for people with arrest and conviction records.

Organizers note that a prior history of convictions or arrests is a form of employment discrimination that has a “disproportionate impact on men of color, who are more likely to be incarcerated as a result of rampant over-criminalization,” according to the Ban the Box website.

In 2015, foundation leaders affiliated with the Executives’ Alliance for Boys & Men of Color submitted a letter to President Obama urging him to issue an executive order to “Ban the Box” in federal government and federal contractor hiring, which would open employment opportunities in the private sector.

Ban the Box Logo

Foundation leaders also recognized that a wide spectrum of stakeholders needed to be involved to address this employment barriers, including employers in the philanthropic sector.

The collaborative is challenging foundations to adopt fair hiring policies so that foundations will play their part as employers “to remove the stigma associated with a record, and (set) an example for other foundations and their grantees to follow.” Such actions will help advance opportunities to assist formerly incarcerated individuals and reduce recidivism.

The Ban the Box movement has attracted a bevy of prominent foundations across health, economic and social welfare focus areas, including The California Endowment, Ford Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kresge Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

The group is calling grantmakers and other organizations to action.  The current social media campaign is asking supporters to #BanTheBox and promote #FairChanceHiring.

Since transparency is still a challenge for the field of philanthropy, seeing foundation leaders step forward on the pressing social issues of the day could be an encouraging signal that some are growing more comfortable with more public facing and influencing roles.  Transparency Talk looks forward to tracking the impact this movement will have on the philanthropic sector’s hiring practices, as well as its influence on encouraging other foundations to take more visible roles on the issues and causes they care about.

--Melissa Moy

The Next Generation of Nonprofit Data Standards
May 2, 2016

(Jacob Harold is president and CEO of GuideStar and Brad Smith is president of Foundation Center. Join Harold and Smith for their webinar, How Data Standards Can Help Save the World, on May 12 at 2:00 pm EDT. In the webinar, Harold and Smith will discuss the ways data standards are already improving the grantmaking process for both funders and grantees. They'll also address how foundations can participate in these initiatives and promote a better information system for the sector. See you there! This post first ran in PhilanTopic.)

Our current moment in the human story is often called the age of information. And indeed, we are too-often overwhelmed by the torrent of data coursing through our lives. As a society, we have developed many tools to organize the information we rely on every day. The Dewey Decimal System helps libraries organize books. UPC codes help stores organize their products. Nutrition labels help to present information about food ingredients and nutritional value (or lack thereof) in a way that's consistent and predictable.

Data Standards Image-600wi
The nonprofit sector has also relied on data standards: we use the government's Employer Identification Number (EIN) to identify individual organizations. The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) is used by many — including GuideStar, Foundation Center, and others — to help reveal the diversity of the nonprofit community, guide funding decisions, and foster collaboration.

But just as other information systems have continued to evolve so must ours. When the Dewey Decimal System was developed in 1876, Melvil Dewey could not have imagined Amazon.com, e-readers, or Goodreads.com. Similarly, the EIN/NTEE framework is simply not enough to explain, organize, and share the complex story of nonprofits.

So we are glad to share the news that a new generation of social sector data standards is emerging. These can help us all do our work better, making smarter decisions while saving time to focus on that work.

There a several standards that are important, but we'd like to direct your attention to four:

Standard

Description

History

BRIDGE

A unique identifier for every nonprofit organization in the world.

A joint project among GlobalGiving, Foundation Center, GuideStar, and TechSoup Global.

Philanthropy Classification System

A taxonomy that describes the work of foundations, recipient organizations, and the philanthropic transactions between them.

Led by Foundation Center, with significant input from hundreds of stakeholders.

GuideStar Profile Standard

A standardized framework for nonprofits to tell their own stories. Used by more than 100,000 nonprofits.

Includes the five Charting Impact questions (developed in partnership with Independent Sector and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance). GSPS feeds the GuideStar for Grants system that was developed as part of the Simplify Initiative in partnership with the Technology Affinity Group.

eGrant/hGrant

An easy way for foundations to share the grants they make in near-real time.

Over 1,200 foundations use eGrant to report their grants data to Foundation Center and 19 foundations publish their data in open format through the Reporting Commitment.

This list is by no means comprehensive — other standards are also important, including but not limited to IATI and PerformWell. Others, such as XBRL or LEI, could become important for the field. But for now, we urge the nonprofit sector to understand these four standards and, where possible, to adopt them for your own use.

-----

It is worth noting that we in the nonprofit sector use the word "standards" in two distinct ways. First, there are "practice standards" that work to define excellence. The BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability or Independent Sector's Principles for Good Governance and Effective Practice fit this definition. Practice standards are a powerful way to help define and promote good practices.

But here we're pointing to "data standards" that are simply a way of organizing information in a consistent format to make it more useful. Both practice standards and data standards exist to help us do our work better. Neither guarantee excellence, but in different ways they help us drive toward excellence.

-----

As a field, we need to absolutely minimize the amount of time we spend managing data — and maximize the time we spend solving problems. Think of these standards as enablers to help us do just that, and do it at scale.

--Jacob Harold and Brad Smith

5 Questions for Judy M. Miller, Vice President and Director, Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize
October 8, 2015

(At $2 million, the Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize is the world’s largest humanitarian award and is presented to organizations judged to have made extraordinary contributions to alleviating human suffering. Judy M. Miller oversees all aspects of the Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize, from the nomination and evaluation process to the final selection of recipients by an independent international panel of jurors.)

Judy Miller profile
Transparency Talk: Anniversaries are often a moment when foundations reflect on the past and open up around lessons learned from their work, and then share that knowledge and that body of work in new ways publicly. It seems like Hilton is undergoing one of those kinds of moments now, both with the 20th anniversary of the Hilton Humanitarian Prize, and also with your leadership transition.  Can you talk about how those milestones have contributed to taking stock of the Humanitarian Prize and informing new directions, such as the new Coalition?

Judy Miller: Just like in any other field, practice and experience make us better at our jobs, and input from our partners helps us to be more effective. As we embarked upon the 20th year of awarding the Hilton Humanitarian Prize, we looked to our Laureates to see how the Prize had shaped their paths – what doors it opened and how it enabled them to grow. The 19 past prize recipients are some of the most effective and prestigious humanitarian organizations in the world, and what we found when talking with them was that this group had become quite a formidable, yet informal network. On their own, they started partnering with each other as they learned about each other through our annual Hilton Prize events.  Soon it became clear that beyond just one or two of their organizations, they saw that even very disparate organizations could join forces to leverage their work and maximize the use of their resources. 

So it became clear that there was tremendous value in further developing the network that our laureates had formed, as strengthening those bonds could only magnify our collective efforts to alleviate human suffering.  At the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, we are always reflecting on how we can amplify the impact of our work. The 20th anniversary of the Hilton Humanitarian Prize was certainly an impetus for more of that reflection.

TT: The Hilton Humanitarian Prize awards an organization rather than an individual.  Can you explain the strategy behind that choice? Prizes are typically designed to recognize specific leaders, so this seems somewhat unique.

JM: This was purposeful.  Since most individual prizes are recognizing the past accomplishments of the recipient, by selecting organizations, we wanted to identify those that were already doing great work, but utilize the Prize to increase their exposure so that they could attract support to innovate and expand even more.  By focusing on organizations rather than individuals, we can actually contribute to building their capacity, and with the unrestricted Prize money they can test new ideas to improve the quality of their services. We’ve seen tangible results from this approach. For example, BRAC, our 2008 Hilton Humanitarian Prize Laureate, used their grant money to expand their anti-poverty program into South Sudan, where they have built a microfinance operation and continue to work on small enterprise development.  In just the past seven years, BRAC has reached an estimated 50,000 people in South Sudan who were in desperate need of help. This is the kind of impact we want the Hilton Humanitarian Prize to have, and we have watched our Prize Laureates accomplish this and more as they’ve grown through the years. While there are certainly individuals working in this field of humanitarian work who deserve recognition, the Hilton Prize is meant to facilitate and improve, as well as recognize excellent humanitarian work.

Hilton Humanitarian Prize 20 Vertical (1)TT: Prize philanthropy is often, by design, shrouded in secrecy—from the selection process to the jury.  Your website actually lists its current and past jury members.  Can you talk about why you made the choice to be transparent about these behind the scenes elements of the Prize?

JM: We are very proud of the panel of independent, international jurors who are at the top of their respective fields and meet in person each year to deliberate on selecting the prize recipient.  They take their role very seriously.  While the selection process itself remains discrete, we do not feel the need to hide the people who are making the final decisions. In fact, we take pride in their distinguished credentials and know that the individual Laureates selected feel honored that this prestigious group had selected them.   Our current panel includes a Nobel Prize-winning economist, a former Prime Minister of Norway who also led the World Health Organization, one of the most prominent philanthropists in Africa who focuses on education, and a former leader of UNICEF. Previous jurors held equally distinguished credentials.                                                                                                                                       

TT: Your recent announcement to create a network or Coalition of your Humanitarian Prize winners seems a great way to extend the value of the Prize beyond the monetary and profile-raising value, since it’s a way for organizations to build peer networks that contribute to shared learning.  Can you speak to some of these aspects and your hopes for how this group of organizations will learn from one another, and how you are supporting them to best enable them to live up to that potential? 

JM: Given today’s global challenges, often many issues are simply too large or complex for any single organization to handle, particularly in such areas as disaster response where collaboration in the field is essential for impact and efficiency.  We recognized the unique opportunity for our Laureates to join forces in the field because they already know and respect each others’ accomplishments, and each organization’s work is very diverse so they can address multiple areas of need.  Key to supporting their efforts was funding a Secretariat to be the backbone behind what the Laureates wanted to accomplish together.  Individual Laureate organizations do not have personnel to devote to the organizational or fiduciary role, which is needed.  As a unique collective force with common goals, we are confident their experiences will produce learning that will contribute to the entire humanitarian field.   

As for financial support of their combined work, the Foundation has dedicated $2 million to kick-start the implementation of two new, signature programs already identified by the Laureate Coalition to be priority issues.

First, the Hilton Prize Laureates Fellowship Program is a joint effort to train the next generation of humanitarian activists, selecting a group of graduate and undergraduate students to learn from the best nonprofit organizations around the world. Not only will this program draw the Laureates closer together by requiring cooperation in educating these young humanitarians, but it will also lay the foundation for a future in which these organizations and others are led by the program’s alumni, who will have a common base of knowledge and close personal relationships to these important causes. The Hilton Prize Coalition is as much about acting together as it is about learning together.  Tostan and Amref Health Africa piloted the first such initiative in Senegal and that collaboration is still ongoing.   

The second signature program that the Coalition is implementing this year is the Disaster Resiliency and Response project.  As a group, the Laureates Coalition is present in more than 150 countries.  At any time, perhaps 4-5 or even 8-10 Laureates could be active in a single country, making disaster response a key initiative for collaboration.  After the devastating 2010 Haiti earthquake, some of our Laureates -- Operation Smile and Partners In Health -- collaborated to treat 380 trauma cases across the country.  Following the earthquake, Heifer International convened all 8 Laureate country directors working in Haiti and they developed an online detailed mapping of all programs to improve future collaboration.  This is the kind of cooperation that the Hilton Prize Coalition aims to replicate and improve with the new, formalized bonds.  Through the Disaster Resiliency and Response program, the laureates are creating a model for NGOs to cooperate in the aftermath of a disaster. In addition, the project will work with disaster-prone communities to build resilience, preparing them for when future disaster strikes. These are just some ways that the Hilton Foundation is helping to bring the combined resources of our Laureates to bear against the greatest humanitarian challenges we face.

Prize_Infographic_2015_finalTT: Prize philanthropy seems to be more popular today than it was when you started the Humanitarian Prize 20 years ago.  What advice do you have for other philanthropists who are considering starting a Prize about how to do it well? And how do you evaluate the effectiveness of Prize philanthropy?

JM: When we started there were only three prizes over $1 million—the Nobel, the Templeton and the Conrad Hilton.  Now not only has inflation increased the size of prizes, but the numbers of organizations are recognizing the value of prizes.  I have been called by several organizations thinking of starting a prize, and I encourage them.  One problem that we at the Hilton Foundation face in prize philanthropy is that of scope. Especially for an international prize, there are so many excellent organizations that positively impact the lives of countless people every day, but for the Hilton Humanitarian Prize to be as effective as possible, we can only award it to one organization each year. To address this, the Foundation tries to be as inclusive as possible in the process of selecting a recipient. Each year we receive hundreds of nominations, and our requirements for nominees are intentionally broad, just as the definition of “humanitarian” is very broad.  The only rules are that the nominator must have direct knowledge of the nominee’s work, the nominator cannot receive any payment from the nominee, and the nominator can’t be a family member of someone who works for the nominee.

These simple requirements allows for extremely worthwhile organizations that may not have the highest profiles to be considered for the Prize.  We want to make sure that the most worthy organizations receive our Prize, so we cast a wide net.  Since the nominations come from throughout the world, the Foundation also learns of organizations that we otherwise would not know; this is important since about half of our grantmaking is international in scope.  It is also gratifying to see the growth of our Laureate organizations over time.  When we awarded the first ever Humanitarian Prize to Operation Smile in 1996, they were only active in 12 countries and conducted one service mission per year.  Now, Operation Smile is active in 60 countries and will conduct close to 180 missions in 2015.  Each Laureate organization continues to demonstrate similar growth, validating the jury’s selections. 

We evaluate the effectiveness of the Prize through the success of our Laureates, all of whom are constantly expanding and thriving. Many of them credit some of their growth to the Hilton Humanitarian Prize.  As long as we are helping our Laureates to make peoples’ lives better, we are fulfilling our purpose.

--Janet Camarena

Funding the Marriage Equality Movement: Lessons in Collaboration and Risk Taking
July 6, 2015

(As a communications associate at Foundation Center, Noli Vega helps to develop, implement, and monitor strategies to increase the organization’s visibility and communicate about its products and services effectively. She manages projects that strengthen both internal and external communications — in print, online, and in person. Noli has worked with a variety of nonprofits including the Inner Resilience Program at the Tides Center, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). She earned a B.A. in political science and women’s studies from Lehman College. This post was originally featured as a GrantCraft case study.)

NAV_web_180_180_s_c1The marriage equality movement in the United States has been fueled by the strategic and coordinated efforts of legal groups, advocacy organizations, and a small but active community of grantmakers. The historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2015, to extend marriage equality nationwide was preceded by a gradual legislative sea change and dramatic shift in public opinion. In 2001, a majority of Americans opposed the idea of allowing same-sex couples to marry. In 2015, polls showed a reversal of the numbers with 57 percent of Americans favoring marriage equality.

One of the key funders behind this shift was the Civil Marriage Collaborative (CMC), an initiative of the Proteus Fund that has partnered with individual donors and foundations to give roughly $2 million in grants each year since 2004 for a broad range of publicly visible education activities to advance marriage equality. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision to uphold same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, it’s worth looking closer at how the CMC, as a funder collaborative, contributed to the success of the marriage equality movement. The CMC’s story also offers lessons about the role philanthropy can play in advocacy, and how funders can collaborate and take risks for greater impact in a movement.

The CMC sought to change the debate about marriage equality by funding a broad array of public education activities including research, message development, and state-level polling.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, federal law defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. By 2004, marriage equality had gained traction with key legislative wins, including the approval of civil unions in Vermont, which granted same-sex couples some, but not all, of the legal benefits of marriage, and a landmark victory in Massachusetts that made it the first state in the U.S. to uphold the right of LGBT couples to marry. But it was also a year of setbacks for the movement, as a series of same-sex marriage bans were passed in 13 states. According to the CMC’s director, Paul A. Di Donato, it was around this time that some grantmakers began to realize that achieving a critical mass of support for marriage equality would require greater engagement by philanthropy, not just a few relationships between individual foundations and big national players. With that in mind, a group of funders, including the Gill Foundation, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, the Overbrook Foundation, and the Proteus Fund as a convener, came together around the idea that pooling financial resources and sharing collective knowledge could lead to broader change. They agreed to test the waters as a funder collaborative for a few years to observe whether same-sex marriage would continue to gain traction. In 2007, when Paul joined the CMC, same-sex marriage was still at the top of the LGBT agenda, and the collaborative’s members were still deeply committed to supporting public education activities advancing this agenda.

Rainbow_flag_wide

From the outset, the collaborative focused on a state-based funding strategy that aligned with the overarching vision of the national campaign. CMC reasoned that “success at the state level is essential to build a national movement for a definitive victory at the federal level.” Paul and the CMC also recognized that there was a need to fund organizations operating at the state level because other grantmakers had made an assumption that funding national organizations would result in larger impact. To keep a pulse on emerging priorities in different states, the CMC formed connections with a range of influential partners, including organizations such as Freedom to Marry, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal. Paul explains that relationship building was an intentional part of the CMC’s strategy. “We always maintained very close working relationships and true partnerships with key national leaders, other movement organizations, and our grantees in the states to make sure we were operating as an integrated team.”

Drawing on the knowledge of its network, the CMC sought to change the debate about marriage equality and shift opinions by funding a broad array of public education activities including research, message development, and state-level polling (both baseline and post-public education polling in order to demonstrate cause and effect). Once the most effective messages had been identified, they could be deployed by grantees through field tactics like coalition building, community outreach, and other forms of advocacy. The collaborative understood that all of these activities had to happen concurrently — “firing on all cylinders,” as Paul puts it — in order to build the momentum needed to change polling numbers, which was one measure of success.

As a funder collaborative, the CMC has modeled how strategic partnerships and collaboration in philanthropy for advocacy can achieve significant results.

The CMC made it a priority to learn from both the successes and failures of the initiatives it funded. By striving to understand why particular activities worked or why setbacks occurred, the collaborative could invest the appropriate resources in helping grantees fine-tune the next iteration of their work. Of course, it can be challenging to fund in an environment that is constantly changing, in which it may not be possible to achieve consistently successful results. But Paul is confident that some of the CMC’s biggest successes resulted directly from its openness to taking risks after major setbacks such as the passage of Proposition 8 in California in 2008 or the loss of marriage equality in Maine during a 2009 ballot initiative. “I can honestly say that we were risk takers. When there was a big loss in the field where we had been funding the public education component, we doubled down. We were willing to make bets on people and tactics and strategies that were evolving as they went along.” After the loss in Maine, the CMC continued — and even ramped up — its funding in order to help local grantees like EqualityMaine analyze the problem, understand how to address it, and implement a new plan. When the question of same-sex marriage reappeared on the ballot in 2012 in Maine and three other states, it passed.

The CMC’s willingness to take risks enabled it to be responsive to emerging opportunities and challenges. These strengths stem in part from the nature of a funder collaborative structure, which, in CMC’s case, yielded strategic benefits, including:

  • Convening power: The collaborative was a catalyst for bringing key stakeholders together in order to achieve an integrated overarching strategy. At annual meetings, funder members met for shared learning and agenda-setting discussions with movement leaders; national nonprofit partners; experts in field organizing, polling, and communications; and grantees. The CMC used its convening power to effectively build trust with its grantees and partners, and to gather the knowledge it needed to engage in sophisticated and strategic grantmaking. By the end of these meetings, Paul observes, “the ball had been moved forward in terms of a deeper understanding of issues and getting people on the same page.”
  • Amplified impact: Coordinating with a breadth of organizations had a positive ripple effect that extended the reach of the CMC’s funding and influence. Other grantmakers in the field trusted what the collaborative was doing and followed its lead. According to Paul, it wasn’t uncommon for nonprofits on the ground to seek grants from the CMC before pursuing other funders because “it became a good housekeeping seal of approval to have a CMC grant.” While the collaborative was responsible for investing $20 million in public education activities over 11 years, Paul estimates that it had a direct impact on securing and directing another $10 to $15 million.
  • Knowledge for philanthropy: The CMC commissioned several internal evaluations to examine how public education activities have fit into and impacted the broader movement. These included case studies of the 2011 marriage equality victory in New York State and an evaluation of 2012 ballot box wins in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland. Learnings were shared with the CMC’s network of grantmakers as tools for understanding marriage equality funding and shaping public education grants in other issue areas.

As a funder collaborative, the CMC has modeled how strategic partnerships and collaboration in philanthropy for advocacy can achieve significant results. Following the marriage equality ruling, Paul sees a vital, ongoing role for funders in breaking through other barriers that marriage equality alone will not overcome including discriminatory practices in housing, education, the criminal justice system, and employment. “There’s a robust agenda out there that needs work, and that work can’t happen unless it has money. Until all levels of government are doing everything they can to fight discrimination in all those other areas, the policy job isn’t done.”

For more information about the Civil Marriage Collaborative, visit www.proteusfund.org/cmc.

To learn more about funder collaboratives, read our GrantCraft guide.

--Noli Vega

Glasspockets Find: Learn Foundation Law Pools Resources to Offer Legal Training to Private Foundations
September 3, 2013

(Rebecca Herman is Special Projects Associate for Glasspockets at the Foundation Center-San Francisco.)

Remember all those group projects in school that were supposed to help us work together as a team? The main lesson we learned from the process was that group assignments are never easy. In the grown-up world of philanthropy, “collaboration,” “resource-sharing,” and “knowledge-building” are buzzwords that frequently show up in our benchmarks for success. Foundations often ask nonprofits if they can pool resources and share information with their colleagues, and we all know this can be just as difficult as when we were teenagers.

 Thankfully, there are online tools to facilitate both collaboration and transparency, thereby increasing our efficiency and reducing duplication of effort. Wouldn’t you like to know if someone else has already tackled any complex issues your organization is facing? The Learn Foundation Law website is an example of teamwork by a group of foundations who have created training materials on legal issues in the field of philanthropy. The legal staff at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation created Learn Foundation Law in 2010 as an online instructional resource, so that any foundation can jump-start their legal education.

The website is also a wonderful instance of foundations being more open about seldom-discussed issues in philanthropy. Course topics include legal rules for private foundations on advocacy, lobbying, and anti-bribery/anti-corruption. You can find a commentary on the content of Learn Foundation Law’s online training materials on the blog of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

Advocacy

For more information about advocacy funding in particular, check out this guide on GrantCraft, the Foundation Center’s own online resource and knowledge center for grantmakers. There is even a GrantCraft guide about funder collaboratives! At Glasspockets, we advocate for transparency in philanthropy, and we see one of the benefits of greater openness is to make it easier for the field as a whole to earn an A+ in collaboration.

-- Rebecca Herman

Now That We're 'Canon': 3 Ways to Advance Human Rights Philanthropy
July 1, 2013

(Daniel Jae-Won Lee is the executive director of the Levi Strauss Foundation, an independent private foundation that conveys the pioneering spirit and enduring values of Levi Strauss & Co.: originality, empathy, integrity and courage. He leads the foundation's international grantmaking in four areas: confronting HIV/AIDS stigma and discrimination, advancing worker rights in the apparel industry, helping low-income people save and invest in their futures, and advancing social justice. This blog is re-posted from PhilanTopic.)

Lee-100For better or worse, the field of philanthropy is inundated with reports. My swelling "to-read" pile is the root cause of seemingly intractable clutter in my office.

Amid this cacophony, Advancing Human Rights: The State of Global Foundation Grantmaking warrants our attention. On its part, the International Human Rights Funders Group deserves kudos for culling rich insights from wide-ranging interviews with members from nine countries.

Shedding light on egregious abuses will always remain a crux part of the human rights agenda. On the other hand, narratives of human possibility and courage -- whether of affected communities or defenders -- can powerfully influence hearts and minds.

It's significant, as well, that the Foundation Center co-authored the report, its first-ever in-depth look at the topic of global human rights. As the go-to clearinghouse for information about philanthropy, the Foundation Center tracks trends and makes new knowledge visible, literally and figuratively putting grants data on the map. You might even say that funders look to the Foundation Center to discern what's "canon" in institutional philanthropic funding flows.

Human rights funders, rejoice -- we're on the map.

Some of you will recall the Foundation Center's groundbreaking survey Social Justice Grantmaking: A Report on Foundation Trends, released eight years ago (not to mention the incisive second edition in 2009). Whether by coincidence or correlation, its publication heralded a period of substantial growth for the field of social justice philanthropy, climbing to nearly 15 percent of all institutional giving. More important, it served as a touchstone for vigorous dialogue and nimble collaboration among foundations – even luring new players to the table.

As the ink dries on Advancing Human Rights, how can we spur a similar ripple effect for the field of human rights philanthropy? Here are my initial thoughts -- and let's borrow from the metaphorical trove of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights movement:

1. Help peers out of the closet. Advancing Human Rights identifies a swath of funders making grants that fall within the report’s definition of human rights but do not categorize their work as human rights philanthropy (many explicitly embrace “access to” approaches that go far beyond service delivery in such realms as health and education). Curiously, this includes six of the top fifteen funders -- all based in the United States -- that are featured in the survey.

It is time for more seasoned funders to share lessons from their institutions on "making the case" for a rights-based approach. What arguments or illustrations can convince trustees, donors, executives, and fellow staff members? What tools can we share to make human rights funding accessible -- and not the hallowed (and isolated) terrain of experts?

2. Let’s be "out, loud, and proud" on impact. Advancing Human Rights underscores the need for bold grantmaking that bolsters local advocacy and organizing -- and, moreover, for broadened general operating and multiyear support. This echoes the call to action of the U.S.-based National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy, a sector "watchdog" that aims to represent the best thinking of the nonprofit sector and social justice leaders.

Stark fault lines separate those funders who do and do not embrace these perspectives. Vigorous action to demonstrate the value proposition of investing in advocacy -- and illuminate its "life cycle" of impact over time -- is sorely needed. Within our grant portfolios and databases resides a wealth of data and narratives that will help cement this case. What are the big wins, the intermediate wins -- and, for that matter, the setbacks and upshots? How do strategies like policy advocacy, community organizing, and civic engagement collude to foster "perfect storms" of social change?

Many of us know instinctively that investing in the grassroots is a powerful and durable strategy. If we'd like to see more flows of general and multiyear support for advocacy, it is incumbent upon us to provide convincing evidence. In a provocative report, Leveraging Limited Dollars, NCRP calculated a $115 return in community benefit for every $1 invested in policy and civic engagement in the United States. Let's join this conversation with examples from the global front.

3. Convey "positive" human rights stories. As Advancing Human Rights notes, clear public messaging is critical to build a moral and political consensus for human rights on the grassroots, national, regional and global levels. But this field faces a vexing challenge: people tend to notice human rights only in their absence. In other words, communicating about human rights can seem a rather morbid affair -- as appealing as chasing ambulances.

Shedding light on egregious abuses will always remain a crux part of the human rights agenda. On the other hand, narratives of human possibility and courage -- whether of affected communities or defenders -- can powerfully influence hearts and minds. What's the positive value to society of human rights movements, mechanisms, and wins? How can we use new tools of technology and media to "color in the faces" of those bearing the brunt of stigma and discrimination? How can we make winning cases for values like participation, non-discrimination and access to justice?

No doubt, the global human rights movement is a powerful shaper of the energy and events of our time. Advancing Human Rights sets the stage for funders to deepen our commitment to bolster pioneering advocacy -- and cues the spotlight for the sector of human rights philanthropy to take center stage.

-- Daniel Lee

Part 1: Aha Moments on the Road to Building Healthy Communities
June 24, 2013

(Robert K. Ross, M.D. is President and CEO of The California Endowment.)

Ross-100We are now two-plus years into the implementation of The California Endowment’s 10-Year Building Healthy Communities plan, and I can safely say that it has been the two most exciting years of my career in community and public health. It has already been quite a ride.

This is the first of periodic reports we will produce to share our progress, observations, mistakes, and lessons along the way as we support the efforts of community leaders to create healthier environments for young people in distressed and underserved communities.

Building Healthy Communities – we call it BHC for short – is a commitment of our Board of Directors to a two-pronged strategy. We have “dropped anchor” in fourteen distressed California communities for a 10-year period to work in partnership with community leaders to improve the health and life chances of young people. In addition, we are supporting change at the regional and state levels through funding advocacy, organizational capacity building, and communications on our key health issues.

Watch the video »

It is our intent to have these place-based and "bigger than place" strategies complement one another, and for the moving parts to develop a powerful synergy. At the local level, the BHC communities are engaging multiple sectors to develop innovative efforts to advance health. As these innovative strategies emerge, we’re looking for ways to scale the ideas up through policy change and communications at the state and regional levels. Through acting on multiple levels with complementary strategies, we expect to make a greater contribution than if we were to work only at the place level or only through supporting statewide advocacy. This is central to our theory of change. In a sense, it is fair to consider BHC as a “place-based plus” community change campaign.

In the spirit of the knowledge sharing that is one of the central aspects of Glasspockets and Transparency Talk, I will lift up three “aha” moments we’ve had so far, followed tomorrow by a second post listing key lessons for philanthropy.

Aha #1: The message matters
As we all know, when one talks about the “social determinants” -- the roles that poverty, education, and housing play in health status -- outside the public health world, eyes glaze over. We experienced this communication gap early as local communities strived to decipher our jargon-laden list of 10 targeted outcomes and 4 Big Results. Our communications team, inspired by the engagement of community leaders and residents in the planning process, took this obstacle head-on, and have created what I believe is one of the first successful decodings of the social determinants research: Health Happens Here.

Health-happens-here-250Health doesn’t just happen in a doctor’s office; health happens where we live, work, learn and play.

If you put the phrase Health Happens Here on a photo of a healthy school lunch, or a bike path, or a father and daughter hugging each other, we immediately communicate the norms change we are promoting. We took this message a step further by incorporating it into our internal structures. In looking at our grant-making, we found that 80% of our grants were focused around three areas: neighborhoods, schools and prevention. This led us to create three themes – Health Happens in Neighborhoods, Health Happens in Schools and Health Happens with Prevention – that have become the essential building blocks for our work. In fact, we call them campaigns, another use of language that communicates our intent as a foundation to use our brand to push for policy and systems change. And we are investing in aggressive media strategies to promote this message—through television, radio, print and social networking and through partnerships with influential messengers including First Lady Michelle Obama, Dr. Oz, and Jamie Oliver. A simple, compelling message carried by influential messengers, can shape a new narrative of change.

Aha #2: Trust young people to lead
Early in our BHC process, we chose to bring young people into leadership roles in BHC. Little did I know that this decision would not only impact community efforts but would impact how we view our work. Young people and adults view health issues differently, and it makes perfect sense to engage young people directly in developing strategies to improve their health. It makes sense but in the past, we didn’t. We operated like most adult organizations and didn’t engage young people in our thinking.

We’ve seen first hand that young people can be powerful leaders for social change. When they tell their stories through the arts, spoken word, social networking and journalism, they compel action. They are not only about our future; they are leaders of today.

Now that we have taken this step, we’re learning a lot. Young people brought to our attention the scandalous epidemic of suspensions and expulsions in our schools, and helped us understand how this issue connects to their health. Young men of color led us to a greater understanding of the role of trauma in the lives of youth growing up in homes and neighborhoods plagued with violence and gangs, and lifted up the need for social/emotional health and healing. And we’ve seen first hand that young people can be powerful leaders for social change. When they tell their stories through the arts, spoken word, social networking and journalism, they compel action. They are not only about our future; they are leaders of today. We’re evolving into an organization informed by adult and youth perspectives.

In addition to the numerous youth organizing and development efforts in the sites, I’ve created a “President’s Youth Council,” consisting of 14 youth leaders across the state, who meet with me at least twice annually in my role as President & CEO. In this way, I have the privilege of  hearing directly from youth leaders themselves about the progress and struggles of BHC, and how our foundation can be more responsive to and supportive of young people’s distressed neighborhoods. I believe this represents a fundamental culture change that will influence our work in the years to come.

As of this writing, BHC youth leaders, working in coalitions with the organizations that support them, have begun to rack up a series of policy victories that will put a check on the epidemic numbers of school suspensions, calling for alternative, common-sense discipline practices (like restorative justice approaches) that keep kids in school. This was an issue, by the way, that was nowhere on our radar screen in the early planning of BHC. It emerged from the youth voices in the BHC sites.

Aha #3: Build power, not just knowledge and innovation  
Frederick Douglass said that power concedes nothing without demand. The world doesn’t change because of the release of new data. It responds or concedes when people demand change.

Institutional philanthropy tends to worship at one of two altars: new knowledge, and innovation. Both are overrated, over-hyped, and over-subscribed to in our field.

Institutional philanthropy tends to worship at one of two altars: new knowledge, and innovation. Both are overrated, over-hyped, and over-subscribed to in our field. It can be argued that the primary value of philanthropy to civic society is the issue of problem-solving at scale. In a wonderfully linear, logical, and intellectually-driven world, good data, research, and new knowledge would be king. But that is not the world we live in. Recently, I noted that the state legislature in North Carolina effectively banned the use of scientific projections on global warming-induced tidal changes because they stand to impede the path of business development. More recently, the NRA-led prohibition against gun violence research by the CDC was recently challenged by President Obama after Newtown. I wish these represented isolated events, but history has shown that good science is frequently set aside by political and economic forces to the detriment of civic society.

The best public health example of this issue is the 80-year-plus war against big tobacco. The medical and public health communities have had the science about the detrimental effects of tobacco use since the 1920’s; but big tobacco had the power. We lost the battle decade after decade, and it was not until we discovered the merits of political and grassroots advocacy which, in combination with the science, led to a strategy where we began to rack up some victories.

On a related front, philanthropy seems hopelessly in love with “innovation” as well.  In the corporate, for-profit world, innovation quickly scales through profit – the I-phone being a classic example. In the social sectors, innovation rarely paves the way towards scale on its own merits. Too many politically powerful forces are in play. Power, voice, and advocacy matter, and matter greatly. Data and innovation, without the recognition of political power and advocacy, is in vain. The school suspensions battle was a perfect illustration of this point, as youth leaders and youth advocacy organizations utilized suspension data that demonstrated a disproportionate impact on African-American and Latino young men as a result of the practices.

In Building Healthy Communities we’ve decided to be clear; we want to help community leaders and residents build the power they need to promote healthier places for young people. We want to support people and organizations that think power, act with power and demand change. Power concedes nothing without demand, and as Douglass added, it never has and it never will.

Tomorrow, in part 2 of this series, Dr. Robert Ross discusses 10 lessons learned on the path to community engagement.

--Robert K. Ross, M.D.

Ants in the Kitchen: The Role of Data in Human Rights Funding
June 19, 2013

(Caitlin Stanton is the Director of Learning & Partnerships at Urgent Action Fund for Women's Human Rights. Previously, she was the Senior Program Officer for Learning & Evaluation at the Global Fund for Women.)

Stanton-100A professor at Vanderbilt University, Brooke Ackerly, once told me, “Numbers matter. If someone tells you there are ants in your kitchen, you will want to know whether there are two ants in your kitchen or whether there are TWO MILLION ANTS IN YOUR KITCHEN.” And if there are anywhere near two million ants in your kitchen, then your neighbors will also want to know about it. Transparently sharing quantitative data helps us understand the scope of a problem, decide how to gauge the scale of our response, and allows others to learn from our efforts.

Transparently sharing quantitative data helps us understand the scope of a problem, decide how to gauge the scale of our response, and allows others to learn from our efforts.

In Advancing Human Rights: The State of Global Foundation Grantmaking, the Foundation Center and the International Human Rights Funder’s Group collect, analyze, and publicly share quantitative data that tell us about the scale of our response to human rights violations. The report finds that foundation grantmaking to address these issues occurs on a global scale and is a widespread practice, with 703 foundations giving a total of $1.2 billion in grants for human rights causes in 2010.

For many of us in the field of human rights grantmaking, and particularly within foundations that work to advance the rights of women and girls, the startlingly low amount of funding going to address the issue of freedom from violence stands out as an important finding from the report.

Funding to secure freedom from violence accounts for just 4 percent of the total grantmaking by human rights funders included in the study. Even within that issue, the largest chunk of grant money goes to addressing freedom from torture, a significant issue to be sure, but one that impacts a relatively small number of individuals compared to the one billion women and girls who face violence based on their gender. In fact, the report finds that in 2010, just $5.3 million was directed to the issue of domestic violence and another $8.6 million to the issue of gender or identity-based violence. Combined, these would account for only about 1 percent of all of the $1.2 billion in grants included in the study.

This data helps us identify issues, like that of gender-based violence, where the scope of the problem may not align with the scale of the response. In terms of the scope of the problem, we know that approximately one out of every three women and girls around the world have their right to freedom from violence violated because of their gender – they experience assault, rape, abuse, and even murder. We know that beyond being a human rights violation, this violence costs societies billions ($5.8 billion annually in the US alone, according to the CDC) in lost worker productivity, public health implications, and costs associated with legal and social services.

Any way you look at it, violence against women is a major roadblock to economic and social progress and a human rights violation. When we compare the scope of the problem to the scale of the response, this data is telling us that we are responding to a two million ant problem with a two ant solution.

However, where grantmaking on freedom from violence is happening, there are innovative efforts to integrate grantmaking, field-building and advocacy strategies for greater impact. Recently, three examples stood out to me:

In the city of Chicago, one-third of all crimes reported are domestic violence related. The Chicago Foundation for Women’s Freedom from Violence initiative includes grantmaking, policy advocacy and capacity building strategies. An Advocacy Academy and Executive Directors Roundtable also support local nonprofits working for the right to live free from violence.

Global Fund for Women has funded organizations that helped to achieve stronger legislation on violence against women and girls in 25 countries, including the Philippines, Bulgaria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mongolia, and Georgia among others. Last fall it looked for ways to raise its own voice on this issue, and worked with a coalition of 17 other women’s funds to bring a petition to the Council of Europe in support of the ratification of the Istanbul Convention - a framework to prevent, stop, and sanction the crime of violence against women.

The Open Society Foundations have directed grantmaking toward freedom from violence but also used their website as a platform to share grantee’s stories and to raise awareness of campaigns on this issue. Most recently, the OSF Moving Walls exhibit has included the stories of domestic violence survivors from South Africa

Data can tell us a lot; revealing challenges and the action we’ve taken -- or failed to take -- to solve those problems. Stories from funders that work to secure freedom from violence adds another layer. A sense of what might be possible. Hopefully, these examples are just a beginning. A beginning of a wave of grantmakers, ready not only to fund but to raise our own voices on this issue.

--Caitlin Stanton

Share This Blog

  • Share This

About Transparency Talk

  • Transparency Talk, the Glasspockets blog, is a platform for candid and constructive conversation about foundation transparency and accountability. In this space, Foundation Center highlights strategies, findings, and best practices on the web and in foundations–illuminating the importance of having "glass pockets."

    The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation Center.

    Questions and comments may be
    directed to:

    Janet Camarena
    Director, Transparency Initiatives
    Foundation Center

    If you are interested in being a
    guest contributor, contact:
    glasspockets@foundationcenter.org

Subscribe to Transparency Talk

Categories