Transparency Talk

Category: "Communications" (98 posts)

An Interview with Jennifer Humke, Senior Program Officer, MacArthur Foundation…On How Bottom-Up, Citizen-Made Media Strengthens Democracy
September 19, 2018

Jennifer Humke is senior program officer for Journalism and Media at the John D. and Catherine T.  MacArthur Foundation. Jennifer focuses primarily on grantmaking in participatory civic media as part of the journalism and media team. In this role, she makes grants to enable more individuals and groups to use participatory media for social change.

Recently, Janet Camarena, director of transparency initiatives for Foundation Center, interviewed Humke about how supporting citizen-made media can improve our democracy. This post is part of the GlassPockets’ Democracy Funding series, designed to spotlight knowledge about ways in which philanthropy is working to strengthen American democracy.

Jennifer Humke 2GlassPockets: The MacArthur Foundation has long supported media. How has the way that the MacArthur Foundation thinks about the connection between journalism, media, and a healthy democracy changed over the years?

Jennifer Humke: MacArthur has invested in media for more than three decades. The first grants made in the 1980s focused on supporting independent and diverse perspectives on broadcast television and documentary film to ensure a multiplicity of voices and viewpoints were contributing to and represented in the media.

Of course, the world and the media have changed and evolved enormously since then, introducing new opportunities and new challenges. Our grantmaking also has evolved as a result, but we still hold strong to the fundamental belief that a high-functioning democracy is dependent upon a well-informed and engaged American public.

”Investments are designed to strengthen our democracy by supporting just and inclusive narratives that inform, engage, and activate Americans to build a more equitable future.“

Today, our Journalism and Media program makes grants totaling approximately $25 million each year to support nonfiction storytelling (primarily documentary film), investigative and accountability reporting (primarily through the support of national nonprofit newsrooms), and participatory citizen-made media (and I use the term citizen in the broadest sense to include everyone living in this country). Investments are designed to strengthen our democracy by supporting just and inclusive narratives that inform, engage, and activate Americans to build a more equitable future.

A priority of this grantmaking is to ensure all Americans, and especially those from historically marginalized groups, are able to have their voices heard and help us move toward a more inclusive and pluralistic American society.

GP: While on the topic of inclusion and pluralism, more foundations are developing initiatives around diversity, equity, and inclusion. How is the lens of racial equity informing your grantmaking strategies and practices?

JH: When Julia Stasch became President of the MacArthur Foundation, she charged all of us -- her staff -- to lead with a commitment to justice in all that we do. This included everything from elevating the voices of those who are not always heard in policy discussions to ensuring that our grantmaking considers and supports a broad diversity of organizations and helps to address historic and structural inequities. You can read an update by Julia Stasch about MacArthur’s “Justice Imperative” here.

The Journalism and Media program has an explicit focus on inclusion. Our grantmaking focuses on amplifying the voice and influence of often excluded and under-represented individuals, organizations, and communities, and on facilitating leadership opportunities for people of color.

Macarthur foundationGP: “Elevating the voices of those who are not always heard in policy discussions” makes me think of young people today. Since the students who survived the Parkland High School shooting have so effectively organized around gun control, there seems to be growing interest in youth movements and youth organizing. Yet, when I look at Foundation Center’s historic data about the populations served by most foundation democracy grants, youth-focused democracy grants have received less than 1% of funding. Is this changing at MacArthur? Do you think this is changing field-wide?

JH: MacArthur does not have a strategy to support youth movements and youth organizing. But our grantmaking in participatory civic media was deeply influenced by findings from a research initiative MacArthur supported to explore new strategies and approaches for preparing young people to be good citizens in a digital world. Called the Youth and Participatory Politics Research Network, it was a nearly decade-long effort, carried out by an interdisciplinary group of academics and practitioners, who worked together on a range of intersecting projects. One of the Network’s main insights was that young people are as engaged today -- if not more so than in any era in the past – in civic and political activity, but that it looks different today. Young people are not engaging through traditional civic and political institutions, but rather their engagement and participation is reflected through their media making online.

”Young people are not engaging through traditional civic and political institutions, but rather their engagement and participation is reflected through their media making online.“

The fact is that most young people, especially youth of color and from other marginalized groups, do not believe that many of our country’s institutions care about or are interested in meeting their needs. As a result, their organizing and engagement is taking place in spaces where they are better able to influence policy, culture and institutions, and that is oftentimes online and fueled and scaled using social media and other digital technologies.

The March for Our Lives is a prime example. The scale, reach and pace of that effort to organize youth in support of gun control happened largely outside the realm of adults, and it was made possible by new media tools, practices and platforms. It was the result of a highly distributed network of young people who together were able to shift public debate and, in some cases, sway multinational corporations to change their policies in support of the young people’s demands, through their media making and organizing online.

It is clear that Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have become the new public sphere, and our grantmaking is designed to enable inclusive and equitable participation in our democracy through these platforms and practices. We are supporting a number of youth-focused organizations -- such as Youth Speaks, Youth Radio and Voto Latino -- in part, because young people have been historically marginalized from public debate, but maybe more importantly, because they tend to be the leaders in using participatory media for social change. 

GP: It’s interesting to hear about some of the organizations in your portfolio. To help bring your work to life a bit more, can you describe some of the new grants you are making as part of your Participatory Civic Media grantmaking? And how does this complement the other longer-standing parts of the program?

JH: The participatory civic media strategy is the newest part of our Journalism and Media Program. It encompasses the media produced, remixed, and circulated by individuals and small groups to express their lived experiences, viewpoints, and concerns with the goal of influencing policy and culture. A significant hallmark of this type of media making is its low barrier to participation. Advancements in technology and communications have dramatically expanded the ability of non-experts to use media and storytelling for social change. Today, anyone with a smartphone can help to shine a light on long-ignored issues, such as police brutality or violence against immigrants. These are issues that have been marginalized from public debate for decades, if not longer, because they disproportionately affect communities that hold little political power, and as a result do not have access to traditional gatekeepers of news and information. New media platforms, tools, and practices are enabling bottom-up citizen participation in our democracy by knitting together the individual voices of those from marginalized communities that, together, have significant influence over public debate and agenda setting.

We are supporting organizations and activities that are doing work in various ways at the national level to create more opportunities for individuals and groups, especially those that have been historically marginalized from inclusion or representation in mainstream media, to contribute to public dialogue.  This ranges from improving the media making and media literacy skills and knowledge of youth in news deserts across the country (with grants to organizations such as Appalshop’s Appalachian Media Institute and Utah’s SpyHop,) to supporting storytelling initiatives that amplify the voices of under- and misrepresented communities (examples include, Pillars Fund, Define American and The Opportunity Agenda.) The goal of this grantmaking is to increase civic participation in our democracy, largely through the making, sharing, circulating, and critiquing of media online.

”Social media platforms have disrupted traditional news business models, diverting most ad revenue away from publishers and into the coffers of large technology platforms.“

Of course, we recognize the negative impacts these new platforms and practices are having on our democracy. Social media platforms have disrupted traditional news business models, diverting most ad revenue away from publishers and into the coffers of large technology platforms. At the same time, the participatory nature of these platforms has empowered extremists and hate groups to spread and, in some cases, mainstream misinformation and lies. These, of course, are messy problems with no simple answer. We have entered into this space with great humility, making a small number of exploratory grants – to organizations such as The Tow Center for Digital Journalism and Data & Society – to examine the dynamics of these problems with the goal of identifying interventions and seeding and building alliances and processes to address them.

GP: What you’re referencing reminds me that #FakeNews is a hashtag that has grown in prominence since the presidential election. Since working toward a more informed citizenry is at the heart of much of your Journalism and Media portfolio, how has the aftermath of the election and what we’ve learned about how misinformation played a role, affected your grantmaking moving forward?

JH: As a foundation, we spent a lot of time post-election reflecting on whether our grantmaking strategies were addressing the most pressing issues in our fields of operation. The spread of false and misleading information and the role it played in the election was of great concern to us in the Journalism and Media Program. As I mentioned earlier, we have made some new grants since the election to more deeply explore the role large technology platforms have played in spreading lies and amplifying hate, but we also believe that our continued investments in the range of efforts we have supported over the years to ensure all Americans are well-informed and highly engaged is the most important contribution we can make to strengthening our democracy in the current media environment. We will continue to support nonprofit newsrooms and independent documentary filmmakers to create and distribute rigorously researched and nuanced news and narratives and support individuals and citizen groups to use participatory media to engage civically. Together, we believe, these strategies work to hold power to account, uncover injustices, and result in more just and inclusive narratives that reflect the needs and aspirations of all Americans. 

--Janet Camarena

Staff Pick: The Promise and Limits of First Amendment Rights on College Campuses
August 16, 2018

Becca Leviss is a Knowledge Services Fellow at Foundation Center, and an undergraduate student at Tufts University majoring in Sociology.
 
Becca 2Institutions of higher learning are natural places for the open exchange of ideas, debating diverse viewpoints, and learning from people who come from different backgrounds. Yet, in recent years, the issue of free speech on college campuses has at once empowered, and also confused, isolated, and angered students, university administrations, alumni, and the American public.

As a college student myself, this report by Gallup, the Knight Foundation and the Newseum Institute caught my eye. There’s a running joke about the death of free speech on my campus, and I’ve experienced limitations on both sides of the spectrum: choosing not to speak up during class, feeling offended by thoughtless comments, and tapping into comraderies made obvious by a shared intellectual space. While I acknowledge the difficulties of censorship and seclusion, I cannot ignore the way ideological bubbles have provided a sense of security in my college experience. Likewise, as students, academics, and active citizens, we have an obligation to uphold the tenets of American democracy, but also recognize its nuance and complexity.


STAFF PICK

Free Expression on Campus: What College Students Think about First Amendment Issues

Download the Report

Publisher

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; Gallup, Inc.

Funders

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; American Council on Education; Charles Koch Foundation; Stanton Foundation

Quick summary

Young people continue to be at the forefront of ideological movements and change-making in American society. As a result, they are demographically opinionated and invested in First Amendment issues. This report updates a 2016 nationally representative study of college students on the security of First Amendment freedoms to account for rapidly shifting political, social, and ideological arenas following the most recent presidential election. While the study confirms the value and overall perception of relative security of free expression for college students, it finds that students are less likely now than they were in 2016 to say that their rights are secure. Their ideology is also often contradictory: students criticize overly-prohibitive campuses and extreme actions to prevent unpopular speech, but statistically are more likely to value inclusion and diversity over free speech.

Field of practice

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

What makes it stand out?

FgtReading this report serves as an important reminder of the fragility of our liberties in shifting political and social contexts, and how those contexts can impact our perspective of security. The report, a continuation of a 2016 study, investigates the intricacies of First Amendment protections through the perspectives of college students and administrations. As university actors attempt to navigate one of the more contentious issues in an already-contentious time, we gain insight the complexity of a free society by examining it through the eyes of the new generation. Since the data collection began with the 2016 study, the authors are able to compare how respondents’ attitudes changed over time.

The report begins with college students’ views of First Amendment rights. Overall college students are less likely to see First Amendment rights as secure, especially when compared with the 2016 survey. This includes a 21-percentage-point decline in perceived security of freedom of the press and nine-point declines for free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government. The report also looks at how political party affiliation may affect these perceptions. For example, the percentage of Republicans that feel that their First Amendment rights (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, petition) are very secure or secure in the country today has increased in comparison to the 2016 study, while Democrats and Independents’ sense of security has decreased significantly since 2016. The study shows that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to perceive their First Amendment rights as secure. We see this difference most notably in their views on freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Almost eight in ten Republicans think that the freedom of the press is secure in 2017, in comparison to almost five in ten Democrats. Even fewer Democrats think that freedom of assembly is secure, compared with 74 percent of Republicans. Independents generally fall somewhere in between the perspectives of Republicans and Democrats.

Some of the most notable shifts in perceptions are in regards to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While 71 percent of Republican respondents think that their freedom of speech is very secure/secure (an increase of five percentage points), only 59 percent of Democrats responded the same, a decrease of fifteen percent from 2016. Across the board, however, respondents report thinking that the freedom of the press is less secure than it was in 2016, regardless of political ideology.

The report also provides insights into groups that don’t always feel they can speak freely on campus. Female students and students of color, for example, are less likely to feel secure about their First Amendment rights. And, college students are much less likely to believe that political conservatives can freely express themselves, compared with other groups.

The study illustrates college students’ struggles to reconcile the importance of both free speech and inclusion in a democratic society. Although students feel that campus climate stifles their ability to speak freely, they largely support university measures to control speech, like the creation of safe spaces, free speech zones, and campus speech codes. When asked to choose between a diverse, inclusive society and protecting free speech, a slight majority of 53 percent favored the former. Conversely, an overwhelming 70 percent support an open learning environment that exposes students to a variety of speech.

The report also reveals that the debates that may have once happened on campus may now be moving to social media, an increasingly popular medium of expression for young people. Fifty-seven percent of students say that discussions of political and social issues take place mostly over social media, as opposed to public areas of campus. Despite social media’s popularity, however, students fear that it generates negative impacts for expression. 63 percent of students disagree that dialogue over social media is mostly civil and 83 percent fear that it is too easy for people to say things anonymously on social media platforms. These negative attitudes towards ideological expression on social media are only increasing. Most dramatically, the percentage of students that believe social media stifles free speech because users block dissenting opinions has risen 12 points since 2016.

The report closes with a look at students’ perceptions about the limits of free speech. Openness advocates will find this section most interesting as it outlines circumstances under which students feel limits on free speech are appropriate. The study examines student reactions to issues of free speech on college campuses from disinviting controversial speakers to on-campus protests—I can say that I’ve experienced most of them firsthand at my own school. The study found that while students oppose disinviting controversial speakers on campus, they do support it under the threat of violence, although 34 percent of respondents concede that violent reactions are sometimes acceptable. Regardless, more than six in ten students are not even aware of the free speech codes of their respective schools, let alone if their schools have ever had to disinvite certain speakers.

Overall, the “…findings make clear that college students see the landscape for the First Amendment as continuing to evolve,” and reveal the complexity of the ongoing debate on First Amendment rights.

Key quote

“College students generally endorse First Amendment ideals in the abstract. The vast majority say free speech is important to democracy and favor an open learning environment that promotes the airing of a wide variety of ideas. However, the actions of some students in recent years — from milder actions such as claiming to be threatened by messages written in chalk promoting Trump’s candidacy to the most extreme acts of engaging in violence to stop attempted speeches — raise issues of just how committed college students are to upholding First Amendment ideals.”

--Becca Leviss

Building Our Knowledge Sharing Muscle at Irvine
May 17, 2018

Kim Ammann Howard joined the James Irvine Foundation as Director of Impact Assessment and Learning in 2015. She has more than 20 years of social impact experience working with nonprofits, foundations, and the public sector to collect, use, and share information that stimulates ongoing learning, and change.

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.

Kim Ammann HowardHaving recently spent two days with peer foundation evaluation directors, I am savoring the rich conversations and reflecting on how shared knowledge benefits my own thinking and actions. It also reminds me of how often those conversations only benefit those inside the room. To really influence the field, we need to build our knowledge sharing muscle beyond our four walls and usual circles. A new report from the Foundation Center, Open for Good: Knowledge Sharing to Strengthen Grantmaking, aims to help funders do just that, and I was happy to contribute some of The James Irvine Foundation’s own journey to the guide.

When I joined the Foundation at the end of 2015, there was already a commitment to transparency and openness that established knowledge sharing as part of the culture. It was something that attracted me to Irvine, and I was excited to build on the types of information collected and disseminated in the past, and to figure out how we could grow.

Open For Good CoverOur Framework

In 2016, we launched our new strategy, which focuses on expanding economic and political opportunity for California families and young adults who are working but struggling with poverty. This presented an opportune moment to articulate and set expectations about how impact assessment and learning (IA&L) is integrated in the work. This includes defining how we assess our progress in meeting our strategic goals, how we learn, and how we use what we learn to adapt and improve. We developed a framework that outlines our approach to IA&L – why we think it’s important, what principles guide us, and how we put IA&L into practice.

While the IA&L framework was designed as an internal guide, we decided to make it available externally for three reasons: to honor the Foundation’s commitment to transparency and openness; to hold ourselves accountable to what we say we espouse for IA&L; and to model our approach for colleagues at other organizations who may be interested in adopting a similar framework.

What We’re Learning

We’ve also dedicated a new portion of our website to what we are learning. We use this section to share knowledge with the field – and not only the end results of an initiative or body of research but also to communicate what happens in the middle – to be transparent about the work as we go.

For example, in 2017, we spent a year listening and learning from grantees, employers, thought leaders, and other stakeholders in California to inform what would become our Better Careers initiative. At the end of the year, we announced the goal of the initiative to connect low-income Californians to good jobs with family-sustaining wages and advancement opportunities. It was important for us to uphold the principles of feedback set in our IA&L framework by communicating with all the stakeholders who helped to inform the initiative’s strategy – it was also the right thing to do. We wanted to be transparent about how we got to our Better Career approach and highlight the ideas reflected in it as well as the equally valuable insights that we decided not to pursue. Given the resources that went into accumulating this knowledge, and in the spirit of greater funder collaboration, we also posted these ideas on our website to benefit others working in this space.

As we continue to build our knowledge sharing muscle at Irvine, we are exploring additional ways to communicate as we go. We are currently reflecting on what we are learning about how we work inside the foundation – and thinking about ways to share the insights that can add value to the field. Participating as a voice in the Foundation Center’s new Open for Good guide was one such opportunity, and the stories and lessons from other Foundations in the guide inspires our own path forward. 

--Kim Ammann Howard

Learn, Share, and We All Win! Foundation Center Releases #OpenForGood Guide and Announces Award Opportunity
May 10, 2018

Open For Good CoverMelissa Moy is special projects associate for Glasspockets.

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.

Knowledge is a resource philanthropy can’t afford to keep for itself, and as a result of a newly available guide, funders will now have a road map for opening up that knowledge. The new GrantCraft guide, Open for Good: Knowledge Sharing to Strengthen Grantmaking, supported by the Fund for Shared Insight, illustrates practical steps that all donors can take to create a culture of shared learning.

Philanthropy is in a unique position to generate knowledge and disseminate it, and this guide will help foundations navigate the process. Each year, foundations make $5 billion in grants toward knowledge production. These assessments, evaluations, communities of practice, and key findings are valuable, yet only a small fraction of foundations share what they learn, with even fewer using open licenses or open repositories to share these learnings. Foundations have demonstrated that some of the information they value most are lessons about “what did and didn’t work.” And yet, this is the same knowledge that foundations are often most reluctant to share.

The guide, part of Foundation Center’s larger #OpenForGood campaign, makes a strong case for foundations to openly share knowledge as an integral and strategic aspect of philanthropy. Through interviews with leaders in knowledge sharing, the guide outlines tested solutions to overcome common barriers to impart learnings, as well as essential components needed for funders to strengthen their knowledge-sharing practice. The guide emphasizes that sharing knowledge can deepen internal reflection and learning, lead to new connections and ideas, and promote institutional credibility and influence. 

Knowledge comes in all shapes and sizes – program and grantee evaluations, foundation performance assessments, thought leadership, formal and informal reflections that are shared among foundation staff and board members. The guide will help your foundation identify the types of information that can be shared and how to take actionable steps.

Download the Guide

OFGaward-528To further encourage funders to be more transparent, this week Foundation Center also announces the opening of a nomination period for the inaugural #OpenForGood Award  to bring due recognition and visibility to foundations who share challenges, successes, and failures to strengthen how we can think and act as a sector.

Three winning foundations will demonstrate an active commitment to open knowledge and share their evaluations through IssueLab. Winners will receive technical support to create a custom knowledge center for themselves or a grantee, as well as promotional support in the form of social media and newsletter space. Who will you nominate as being #OpenForGood?

--Melissa Moy 

To Serve Better, Share
May 3, 2018

Daniela Pineda, Ph.D., is vice president of integration and learning at First 5 LA, an independent public agency created by voters to advocate for programs and polices benefiting young children.

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.

Daniela Pineda Photo 2We share ideas freely on Pinterest, we easily give our opinions on products on Amazon and we learn from “how-to” videos on YouTube from the comfort of our homes. We even enjoy sharing and being creative by pulling ideas and concepts together.

Often, this is not what happens once we step foot in the office. We may find ourselves more reluctant to embrace sharing what works, learning what doesn’t and then applying these lessons to our work. It’s hard to speak about how things didn’t turn out as expected. It is as if we are saving the treasure of our knowledge for a rainy day, as if it’s a limited resource.

I believe in the power of being #OpenForGood, using knowledge to improve philanthropic effectiveness, in our case, to help create more opportunities and better outcomes for young children.

That’s why I am delighted to participate in a new how-to guide that was just released this week by sharing examples from our journey to opening up our knowledge at First5 LA. As part of Foundation Center’s #OpenForGood movement, the new GrantCraft guide Open for Good: Knowledge Sharing to Strengthen Grantmaking provides tips and resources, including strategies for knowledge sharing. Everyone benefits when organizations strengthen their knowledge sharing practices by enhancing organizational capacity and culture, and by understanding how to overcome common hurdles to sharing knowledge.  

“We can achieve more collectively and individually by sharing information and creating knowledge.”

As a public entity, First 5 LA is uniquely positioned to share knowledge with the field. Our mandate to be transparent serves as a powerful launchpad for sharing knowledge. For example, in our work with communities across Los Angeles County, we work to elevate the voices and perspectives of parents to leaders and lawmakers.

When we create opportunities for parents and policymakers to hear from each other, we are moving beyond a transparency requirement to foster more nuanced conversations on how we can all help improve outcomes for kids.

No matter your type of organization or mission -- foundations, nonprofit, government or business, we can achieve more collectively and individually by sharing information and creating knowledge.

Sharing information about what has worked, what hasn’t, and being open to learning lessons from others is a skill that sharpens your thinking, benefits the field, and helps advance your own goals, while also benefiting those you serve.

We must be mindful of the many potential roadblocks to sharing in service of becoming more effective, both inside and outside of our own organizations. Among them: egos and a lack of humility; competition for resources; a lack of incentives to share; and a lack of awareness of what information is shared and what outcomes it produces.

Sharing Sharpens Your Thinking

Failing to see knowledge sharing as part of your job amounts to lost opportunity, lost time, and lost resources. Making the time to find out what others are doing is important. At a minimum, we can feel empowered by the simple knowledge that we aren’t the only ones dealing with the problems we face in our jobs. In a best case scenario, we can adapt that information to our context, and try new ways to do our jobs better.

Open For Good CoverThis notion really hit home for me from a very simple online search when I started a new role. Curious if others were also grappling with similar issues about how to effectively evaluate place-based work, I searched a few sites. In philanthropy, we are fortunate to have impressive open online repositories such as Foundation Center’s Issue Lab, where we can find loads of information.

Indeed, my search led to several pieces on lessons learned from funders of place-based work. I fortunately found a thoughtful report on the topic at hand. But what was most useful, beyond reading the insight gleaned, was that I was then able to reach out to one of the authors to learn exactly what it meant to let the evaluation design evolve with the initiative.

Based on this connection, I refined a step on our learning agenda process to ensure we set the expectation that community voices were consulted earlier, during the planning phase of the project. While we had already planned for inclusion, I learned what types of pitfalls to avoid when structuring community engagement on a long-term evaluation project.

Since reaching out to my colleague, I have continued to learn from him and a broader network of learning practitioners who also value sharing knowledge. This concept of reaching out to others and asking simple questions is simple, and yet so few make the time to do it.

The truth is, great ideas can come from anywhere: a conversation on a commuter train, a session at a conference, or results from a search engine. Sharing, and being open to new ideas, serves to sharpen thinking and can improve your ability to achieve your philanthropic to  goals.

Sharing Benefits the Field

At a more global level, to make an impact on society and change things for the better, share what you know, and be willing to adjust your approach based on what you learn. That’s the approach we embrace at First 5 LA.

This not only helps our organization in our mission, but it sets an example for other like-minded organizations to open their viewpoints on sharing their successes and failures.

“Don’t save your knowledge for a rainy day—it’s an unlimited resource!”

For example, we recently worked with an evaluation partner to restructure the scope of its engagement. This was difficult because the project had been in place for a long time and the restructuring resulted in a more narrow scope. The partner was disappointed that we determined only two of the four initially designed subprojects remained relevant to our work. It could appear we were no longer committed to learn about this investment.

By being open with them, we also heard about their own concerns that the data would be of sufficient quality to conduct rigorous analyses. We listened and came up with a joint approach  to reach out to a different entity to secure an alternative data source. This worked, and now the project has been refocused, new data was secured, and the partner saw firsthand that while the approach changed, we were still committed to learning together.

Sharing information and outcomes is essential to being influencers in our areas of expertise. And learning from others is essential to being assets within our fields. In this case, we landed on an alternative approach to leverage data, and we maintained a productive relationship with our partner. We plan to share this approach broadly so that it can spark new ideas and insights or confirm an approach among other grantmakers grappling with similar issues.

Once we as individuals, managers and organizations can distill and discern knowledge, we can apply it to our own important work for public good, and share it with others to help them with theirs.

Sharing Is a Skill

These sharing efforts should permeate your organization, beyond the C-suite. Leaders must lead by example and encourage staff to see themselves as gatherers – and contributors – of knowledge to their fields.

Ultimately, learning to share information is a skill. To do this, and to glean the best information from data includes sharing it with others both inside and outside of your organization.

But collecting reams of information will do us no good if we do not have a specific plan for the data, and then analyze what it means in a bigger universe – and for those we serve.

At First 5 LA, we take a very pragmatic approach to data collection. First, we work with our programs to identify the specific systems we are trying to impact. Once that is determined, we then create learning agendas, which are tools for us to prioritize the key learning questions that will help us know if we are making progress on behalf of kids in Los Angeles  County.

Our approach requires that we specify how we plan to use those data before we collect it. Data should be tied to specific learning questions.

We are proud of our work and approach to use learning as a strategy, and it is not always easy to let others benefit from what we learn the hard way.

But our work is not ultimately about a singular institution. And you don’t need to save your knowledge for a rainy day—it’s usually an unlimited resource! It’s about huddling under a shared umbrella in stormy weather, and basking together in the sunshine for the ones who need us the most. Those we serve.

--Daniela Pineda

Knowledge Sharing to Strengthen Grantmaking
April 26, 2018

Clare Nolan, MPP, co-founder of Engage R+D, is a nationally recognized evaluation and strategy consultant for the foundation, nonprofit and public sectors. Her expertise helps foundations to document and learn from their investments in systems and policy change, networks, scaling, and innovation. This post also appears on the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations’ (GEO) Perspectives blog.

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.

Clare Nolan PhotoKnowledge has the power to spark change, but only if it is shared. Many grantmakers instinctively like the idea of sharing the knowledge they generate with others. But in the face of competing priorities, a stronger case must be made for foundations to devote time and resources to sharing knowledge. The truth is that when foundations share knowledge generated through evaluation, strategy development and thought leadership, they benefit not only others but also themselves. Sharing knowledge can deepen internal reflection and learning, lead to new connections and ideas, and promote institutional credibility and influence.

Foundations can strengthen their knowledge sharing practices by enhancing organizational capacity and culture, and by understanding how to overcome common hurdles to sharing knowledge. The forthcoming GrantCraft guide Open for Good: Knowledge Sharing to Strengthen Grantmaking provides tips and resources for how foundations can do just that. My organization, Engage R+D, partnered with Foundation Center to produce this guide as part of #OpenForGood, a call to action for foundations to openly share their knowledge.

Knowledge Sharing GraphTo produce the guide, we conducted interviews with the staff of foundations, varying by origin, content focus, size, and geography. The participants shared their insights about the benefits of sharing knowledge not only for others, but also for their own organizations. They also described strategies they use for sharing knowledge, which we then converted into concrete and actionable tips for grantmakers. Some of the tips and resources available in the guide include:

  • A quiz to determine what type of knowledge sharer you are. Based upon responses to questions about your organization’s capacity and culture, you can determine where you fall within a quadrant of knowledge sharing (see visual). The guide offers tips for how to integrate knowledge sharing into your practice in ways that would be a good fit for you and your organization.
  • Nuts and bolts guidance on how to go about sharing knowledge. To take the mystery out of the knowledge sharing process, the guide breaks down the different elements that are needed to actually put knowledge sharing into practice. It provides answers to common questions grantmakers have on this topic, such as: What kinds of knowledge should I be sharing exactly? Where can I disseminate this knowledge? Who at my foundation should be responsible for doing the sharing?
  • Ideas on how to evolve your foundation’s knowledge-sharing practice. Even foundation staff engaged in sophisticated knowledge-sharing practices noted the importance of evolving their practice to meet the demands of a rapidly changing external context. The guide includes tips on how foundations can adapt their practice in this way. For example, it offers guidance on how to optimize the use of technology for knowledge sharing, while still finding ways to engage audiences with less technological capacity.

The tips and resources in the guide are interspersed with quotes, audio clips, and case examples from the foundation staff members we interviewed. These interviews provide voices from the field sharing tangible examples of how to put the strategies in the guide into practice.

Want to know how your foundation measures up when it comes to knowledge sharing? We are pleased to provide readers of this blog with an advance copy of Chapter 2 from the forthcoming Guide which includes the quiz referenced above. Want to learn more? Sign up for the Foundation Center’s GrantCraft newsletter and receive a copy of the Guide upon its release. And, for those who are attending the GEO conference next week in San Francisco, visit us at our #OpenForGood pop-up quiz station where you can learn more about what kind of knowledge sharer you are.

--Clare Nolan

Increasing Attention to Transparency: The MacArthur Foundation Is #OpenForGood
April 17, 2018

Chantell Johnson is managing director of evaluation at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. 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.

Chantell Johnson photoAt MacArthur, the desire to be transparent is not new. We believe philanthropy has a responsibility to be explicit about its values, choices, and decisions with regard to its use of resources. Toward that end, we have long had an information sharing policy that guides what and when we share information about the work of the Foundation or our grantees. Over time, we have continued to challenge ourselves to do better and to share more. The latest refinement of our approach to transparency is an effort toward increasingly sharing more knowledge about what we are learning. We expect to continue to push ourselves in this regard, and participating in Foundation Center’s Glasspockets  and #OpenForGood movements are just a couple of examples of how this has manifested.

In recent years, we have made a more concerted effort to revisit and strengthen our information sharing policy by:

  • Expanding our thinking about what we can and should be transparent about (e.g., our principles of transparency guided our public communications around our 100&Change competition, which included an ongoing blog);
  • Making our guidance more contemporary by moving beyond statements about information sharing to publishing more and different kinds of information (e.g., Grantee Perception Reports and evaluation findings);
  • Making our practices related to transparency more explicit; and
  • Ensuring that our evaluation work is front and center in our efforts related to transparency.

Among the steps we have taken to increase our transparency are the following:

Sharing more information about our strategy development process.
The Foundation's website has a page dedicated to How We Work, which provides detailed information about our approach to strategy development. We share an inside look into the lifecycle of our programmatic efforts, beginning with conceptualizing a grantmaking strategy through the implementation and ending phases, under an approach we refer to as Design/Build. Design/Build recognizes that social problems and conditions are not static, and thus our response to these problems needs to be iterative and evolve with the context to be most impactful. Moreover, we aim to be transparent as we design and build strategies over time. 

“We have continued to challenge ourselves to do better and to share more.”

Using evaluation to document what we are measuring and learning about our work.
Core to Design/Build is evaluation. Evaluation has become an increasingly important priority among our program staff. It serves as a tool to document what we are doing, how well we are doing it, how work is progressing, what is being achieved, and who benefits. We value evaluation not only for the critical information it provides to our Board, leadership, and program teams, but for the insights it can provide for grantees, partners, and beneficiaries in the fields in which we aim to make a difference. Moreover, it provides the critical content that we believe is at the heart of many philanthropic efforts related to transparency.

Expanding the delivery mechanisms for sharing our work.
While our final evaluation reports have generally been made public on our website, we aim to make more of our evaluation activities and products available (e.g., landscape reviews and baseline and interim reports). Further, in an effort to make our evaluation work more accessible, we are among the first foundations to make all of our evaluation reports publicly available as part of Foundation Center's #OpenForGood campaign.

Further evidence of the Foundation's commitment to increased transparency includes continuing to improve our “Glass Pockets” by sharing:

  • Our searchable database of grants, including award amount, program, year, and purpose;
  • Funding statistics including total grants, impact investments, final budgeted amounts by program, and administrative expenses (all updated annually);
  • Perspectives of our program directors and staff;
  • Links to grantee products including grant-supported research studies consistent with the Foundation's intellectual property policies;
  • Stories highlighting the work and impact of our grantees and recipients of impact investments; and
  • Center for Effective Philanthropy Grantee Perception report results

Going forward, we will look for additional ways to be transparent. And, we will challenge ourselves to make findings and learnings more accessible even more quickly.

--Chantell Johnson 

Are You Over or Under-Protecting Your Grants Data? 5 Ways to Balance Transparency and Data Protection in Sensitive Contexts
April 12, 2018

Laia Griñó is director of data discovery at Foundation Center. This post also appears in the Human Rights Funders Network's blog.

Laia Grino photoOver the last few months, this blog has presented insights gained from the Advancing Human Rights initiative’s five-year trend analysis. Getting to these insights would not have been possible had not a growing number of funders decided to consistently share more detailed data about their grantmaking, such as through Foundation Center’s eReporting program. In a field where data can pose real risks, some might feel that this openness is ill-advised. Yet transparency and data protection need not be at odds. By operating from a framework of responsible data, funders can simultaneously protect the privacy and security of grantees and contribute to making the human rights field more transparent, accountable, and effective.

This topic – balancing transparency and data protection – was the focus of a session facilitated by Foundation Center at the PEAK Grantmaking annual conference last month. Our goal was not to debate the merits of one principle over the other, but to help provide a framework that funders can use in determining how to share grants data, even in challenging circumstances. What follows are some of the ideas and tips discussed at that session (a caveat here: these tips focus on data shared voluntarily by funders on their website, with external partners like Foundation Center, etc.; we recognize that funders may also face legal reporting requirements that could raise additional issues).

HRFN Graphic

  • Think of transparency as a spectrum: Conversations regarding data sharing often seem to end up at extremes: we must share everything or we can’t share anything. Instead, funders should identify what level of transparency makes sense for them by asking themselves two questions: (1) What portion of our grants portfolio contains sensitive data that could put grantees at risk if shared? and (2) For the portion of grants deemed sensitive, which grant details – if any – are possible to share? Based on our experience with Advancing Human Rights, in most cases funders will find that it is possible to share some, if not most, of their grants information.
  • Assess the risks of sharing data: Answering these questions requires careful consideration of the consequences if information about certain grants is made public, particularly for grantees’ security. As noted at the PEAK session, in assessing risks funders should not only consider possible negative actions by government actors, but also by actors like militant groups or even a grantee’s community or family. It is also important to recognize that risks can change over time, which is why it is so critical that funders understand what will happen with the data they share; if circumstances change, they need to know who should be notified so that newly sensitive data can be removed.
  • Get grantees’ input: Minimizing harm to grantees is of utmost importance to funders. And yet grantees usually have little or no input on decisions about what information is shared about them. Some funders do explicitly ask for grantees’ consent to share information, sometimes at multiple points along the grant process. This could take the form of an opt-in box included as part of the grant agreement process, for example. At a minimum, grantees should understand where and how data about the grant will be used.
  • Calibrate what is shared based on the level of risk: Depending on the outcomes of their risk assessment (and grantees’ input), a funder may determine that it’s inadvisable to share any details about certain grants. In these cases, funders may opt not to include those grants in their reporting at all, or to only report on them at an aggregate level (e.g., $2 million in grants to region or country X). In situations where it is possible to acknowledge a grant, funders can take steps to protect a grantee, such as: anonymizing the name of the grantee; providing limited information on the grantee’s location (e.g., country only); and/or redacting or eliminating a grant description (note: from our experience processing data, it is easy to overlook sensitive information in grant descriptions!).
  • Build data protection into grants management systems: Technology has an important role to play in making data protection systematic and, importantly, manageable. For example, some funders have “flags” to indicate which grants can be shared publicly or, conversely, which are sensitive. In one example shared at PEAK, a grants management system has been set up so that if a grant has been marked as sensitive, the grantee’s name will automatically appear as “Confidential” in any reports generated. These steps can minimize the risk of data being shared due to human error.

Transparency is at the core of Foundation Center’s mission. We believe deeply that transparency can not only help build public trust but also advance more inclusive and effective philanthropy. For that reason, we are committed to being responsible stewards of the data that is shared with us (see the security plan for Advancing Human Rights, for example). A single conference session or blog post cannot do justice to such a complex and longdebated topic. We are therefore thankful that our colleagues at Ariadne360Giving and The Engine Room have just started a project to provide funders with greater guidance around this issue (learn more in these two thoughtful blog posts from The Engine Room, here and here). We look forward to seeing and acting on their findings! 

--Laia Griñó

“OpenNotes” for Funders: A Radical Idea for More Transparency and Better Relationships
April 11, 2018

Kevin Bolduc is vice president, assessment and advisory services, at Center for Effective Philanthropy. This post also appears in CEP.

Kevin-350x350Transparency — being open, honest, and clear — is a key driver of strong relationships between funders and grantees. It’s valued by foundation and grantee CEOs alike, and grantees think foundations are doing a decent job of being transparent (though more so in sharing about their processes than their learning).

Still, are there more radical ways to improve openness in ways that would benefit both funders and grantees? As I’ve thought about this question, I’ve been drawn to a transparency movement called OpenNotes, which is changing the relationship between doctors and patients.

(To be clear up front, I admit the doctor-patient/funder-grantee analogy is imperfect. Yes, both involve relationship dynamics with significant levels of information and power asymmetry, punctuated by intermittent high-stakes visits and conversations. But, unlike a patient, an individual grantee doesn’t depend on a foundation for its mortal life. Still, I think the analogy can be instructive. Even the savviest patients I know — like my physician husband — talk about not wanting to bother or anger their doctors.)

In the OpenNotes movement, doctors have taken the radical step of directly sharing their medical notes, lab results, and plans — the entire medical record — with patients. They’ve created systems to make those notes easy to access and discuss. It’s a rapidly growing movement, and now more than 20 million patients have access to their doctors’ perspectives about their health, treatments, and plans.

“Transparency — being open, honest, and clear — is a key driver of strong relationships between funders and grantees.”

So how does this relate to foundations? I’d argue that virtually every foundation I’m aware of has similar “notes” in the form of the grant write-ups and recommendations created by program officers for boards and/or senior leadership.

Why not open up those notes to the grantees they’re about? 

If we want to improve funder-grantee relationships — not to mention capacity building and shared learning — what better ways to share than these summaries about why a grant should be funded and what the risks are in doing so? Even when grant recommendations contain worries about a particular risk — organizational capacity challenges or major external risks, for example — a direct, if difficult, conversation between a grantee and her program officer, prompted by an open note, could yield new ideas, clarifications, or opportunities for assistance.

I’ve seen quite a few examples of funder write-up formats, and most contain explanations about a funder’s perspective on the fit between its program’s strategy and the grantee’s work, assessments of why the organization has the capacity to succeed (and sometimes where that capacity can be strengthened), risks the project faces, and observations about potential impact. This is exactly the kind of substance that program officers and grantees should be discussing as much as possible!

I can imagine the reasons why some of you might think this is some combination of silly, impossible, or harmful. Maybe a foundation OpenNotes-style movement would create extra work because grantees would reach out to correct the record or debate the program officers’ assessment of their work. Maybe it would require a different writing style or more editing — or make funders feel pressured to be less honest in their write-ups. Maybe it would create hard feelings.

Well, a lot of that is exactly what doctors once thought, too. I had the chance to sit down with Dr. Tom Delbanco, John F. Keane & Family Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, who was one of the founders of the OpenNotes movement. He told me about how the first doctors to pilot this crazy idea were viewed as “mavericks.” He also described how the early and long-term funding from foundations, including Commonwealth Fund, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, made the movement possible when health systems were skeptical.

Doctors initially felt that the notes would not be easy to share. Of course, they contain the good news of their judgments about what’s going well (e.g., “The patient has had a remarkable response to treatment and is thriving”). But they also contain the unvarnished assessment of what’s not going well (e.g., “Treatment has failed and the patient continues to have unrealistic expectations about the likelihood of cure”).

Funders who share their internal notes with grantees can build “a stronger sense of alignment, approachability, and trust.”

Doctors worried that patients couldn’t handle the more sensitive information, Dr. Delbanco said. The notes felt like expert doctor-to-doctor talk. And doctors worried they’d be inundated with patient requests and extra work. For a few, “closed” notes reinforced a comfortable hierarchical relationship between doctors and patients.

However, research on doctors’ experiences with OpenNotes has been almost universally positive. Writing OpenNotes hasn’t added time to doctors’ work, nor have doctors been besieged by emails from patients. Some participating doctors do feel they need to change their writing (e.g., less jargon, better documentation). But, overall, doctors seem to think opening up their notes provides benefits. In studies of OpenNotes pilots, virtually all doctors chose to continue with OpenNotes even after the pilots ended.

Ultimately, though, this isn’t about the effect on doctors (or funders, in my analogy), right? What we care most about is the effect on patients (or grantees).

This is a question that Dr. Delbanco and others in the OpenNotes movement have studied since the very beginning. It turns out that OpenNotes seems to strengthen both the quality of care and the patient-doctor relationship — and the specifics of those improvements pretty closely match some of the most important components of the grantee-funder relationship.

As a starting point, research suggests that 99 percent of patients feel the same or better about their doctors after having access to their notes. Research by Dr. Delbanco suggests OpenNotes is associated with patients having a greater sense of control, greater adherence to treatment plans, and greater understanding of their medical situation. The results of a qualitative study of patients’ experiences highlights the ways patients say OpenNotes creates better mutual understanding, a greater sense of trust and partnership with their doctors, greater confidence and comfort in their relationships, and better and clearer communication. Another study describes how patients feel that OpenNotes ensures “that we are on the same page,” “helps me come to my appointments better prepared,” and “provides another opportunity for two-way communication.”

Some of these benefits translate fairly directly to the grantee-funder relationship.  I can picture the grantee who, in reading her grant recommendation note, gains a deeper understanding about a funder’s analysis of the context in which she works, greater clarity about how her organization’s work contributes to the outcomes a funder is seeking, and a stronger sense of alignment, approachability, and trust.

When I’m working with funders on responding to results of a Grantee Perception Report, it’s often efforts to improve relationships that feel particularly challenging — especially in an environment where program staff don’t feel they have enough time for more interaction with grantees. So why not try opening up your notes and improving the quality of the conversations you do have? If the experience of patients and doctors is any indication, I bet that simple act of transparency — sharing both the enthusiasm and worries that grant recommendations contain — would help. I’d love to hear your experience if you try.

--Kevin Bolduc

Robert K. Ross, MD, President and CEO, The California Endowment: Parkland Students Inspire Foundation to Screen Out Investments in Firearms Manufacturing
March 14, 2018

Dr. Robert Ross photoOne month after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida that killed 17 people, students across the country are continuing to press for stricter gun control legislation with protests and school walk-outs. According to the Gun Violence Archive, more than 2,837 gun related deaths have occurred so far this year, and both the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association have recommended addressing gun violence as a public health issue.

The week following the shooting, The California Endowment (TCE), California’s largest healthcare foundation, announced it would begin screening out firearms manufacturing from its investment holdings. TCE’s mission is to expand access to affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and communities and to promote fundamental improvements in the health status of all Californians. TCE’s mission statement also outlines that the foundation doesn’t focus on prescriptions, but rather “we focus on fixing broken systems and outdated policies, ensuring the balance of power is with the people. We don’t focus on the individual, we focus on the larger community as an ecosystem of health. We work with citizens and elected leaders to find lasting solutions to impact the most people we possibly can.”

Recently, Glasspockets spoke with TCE president and chief executive officer Dr. Robert Ross, about the foundation’s decision to ban firearms investments, and how this aligns with both TCE’s stated health mission, and its core values around diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Glasspockets: The California Endowment recently announced that it will be scrubbing its investments of any holdings in firearms manufacturing, and this is actually not a new practice, but the third “negative screen” you are adding, since you already had screening in place for tobacco and for-profit prisons. Data shows that this practice is actually fairly uncommon in foundation philanthropy, so it’s clear it’s a challenge for the field. When did you begin the practice, and what led to you going down this path initially when you first implemented negative screening?

Dr. Ross: Since we are a health foundation, the founding board actually started with the tobacco screen in the late 90’s.  We added for-profit prisons more recently, after hearing from community leaders that they considered hyper-incarceration as an unhealthy practice affecting communities of color. This is consistent with our core values statement, which also helps guide our board. The very first item in our values states: “We believe that diversity, equity and inclusion are essential to our effectiveness and the long-term health of all Californians and commit to the integration of diversity, equity and inclusion in all our policies, practices, processes, relationships, internal working culture and systems.” By filtering out tobacco, for-profit prisons, and now gun manufacturing we are being consistent with these values.

“We really have to ask ourselves the question of whether the management of our investments portfolio reflects the values we hold dear.”

Glasspockets: There have sadly been many shootings prior to Parkland. What was it about this one that motivated your foundation to act?  

Dr. Ross: We were motivated by the youth and high school student activism – I think we were “shamed” to act by their leadership. The California Endowment “values the energy, agility and fearlessness of youth leadership and youth organizing in its many forms including local, statewide and online community-building.”

Glasspockets: And are you aware of other foundations being similarly motivated to act, either now or that already had such prohibitions in place? 

Dr. Ross: We have followed the leadership efforts of The California Wellness Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies and Joyce Foundation, all of which, to the best of my knowledge, already have a screen on firearms in place. I’m not certain how many other funders currently have a firearms manufacturing screen.

Glasspockets: The California Endowment was an early adopter of our Glasspockets approach to a more transparent philanthropy. So clearly transparency, openness, and accountability are priorities. Is your commitment to these values part of what motivated the decision and the public stand you are now taking? 

Dr. Ross: Yes, and it was the reason I published the OpEd in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.  Even though these boardroom conversations can get a little “messy,” it strengthens philanthropic practice if we can demonstrate vulnerability and transparency on tough issues. Without actions, our values just become words on a page.

Glasspockets: Glasspockets is currently advising foundations to become more familiar with what holdings they do have, since these are publicly listed on the 990-PF that foundations annually file with the IRS. And that data is now being released as machine-readable, open data—making it more open and accessible than ever before. Is this something TCE is tracking or do you have any internal practices about monitoring what’s in your 990-PF that may be helpful for others? 

“Without actions, our values just become words on a page.”

Dr. Ross: We have begun utilizing ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) practice approaches, as have many others, as a “values and principles” overlay to our investments portfolio. [ESG screening is an array of ethical exclusion metrics designed to govern certain investment decisions. Excluded companies can include those in the tobacco, firearms, and for-profit prison industries. The alerts look for mentions of portfolio companies (those not currently excluded) and rate them as positive, negative or neutral in terms of these screens.]

Glasspockets: The things you are screening out make a lot of sense for a healthcare foundation. Why do you think so few do it? And what advice would you have for them as far as overcoming those challenges?

Dr. Ross: The answer to this is values-values-values.  Most foundations have both a statement of mission and a statement of values, and we really have to ask ourselves the question of whether the management of our investments portfolio reflects the values we hold dear.  You can’t make a blanket values exception for the investments portfolio.  

Glasspockets: In terms of the screening that had already been in place, what has been the impact on endowment growth?

Dr. Ross: I’m not sure, but I do know that a concern some raise when discussing this is the belief that growth may be negatively impacted by the lack of tobacco and private prisons holdings.  But if you’re acting on your values, then I’m not sure the question is material.  Slavery is profitable, but we’d never invest in that….

Glasspockets: And how about the qualitative impact—things that bottom lines don’t measure? 

Dr. Ross: It’s good for boardroom cohesion, and messaging to staff and community that we intend to live up to our values, even if it is discomforting.  It’s hard to put a price tag on reputation and accountability.

--Janet Camarena

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