This is the first of a two-part series looking at the balance between policy leadership and support for grassroots voices. Part two will look at the grantmaking of The California Endowment.
In a recent op-ed in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, NCRP founder Pablo Eisenberg contends that major foundations are exacerbating inequality through their support of large and “elite” institutions such as universities and hospitals, with little funding going to more grassroots organizations seeking social change. He adds:
“Meanwhile, big foundations like Gates, Broad, Walton, and Lumina have become energetic players in trying to shape national and regional public policies. Using the power of their money and political contacts, these institutions are increasingly diminishing the voice of poor and vulnerable constituencies and the nonprofits that represent them.”
Foundations seeking to influence systems that are large, complex and interrelated, such as poverty and education, can get caught between a rock and a hard place. They may be lauded for going beyond short-term, band-aid approaches in favor of long-term solutions, and for throwing their own advocacy weight – not just their grantmaking – behind those solutions. Yet, they are subject to critique for being a big foot in the policy arena, exercising influence that dwarfs other stakeholders. So the key is finding the right balance of both.
Why should high-level policy work be coupled with grassroots involvement?
Organizations and individuals facing the day-to-day challenges of making ends meet, finishing high school and getting into college are the most knowledgeable experts on these problems. As such, they have crucial insight on how systems can best support them to accomplish their goals. Further, grassroots pressure is often needed to ensure that policy change happens and is sustained. Foundations that listen to and engage those they seek to benefit are also modeling a value of accountability to their constituents.
NCRP’s recent Philamplify assessment of the Lumina Foundation for Education surfaced these very issues. Grantees and other stakeholders praised the foundation’s national leadership and policy savvy as it pursues the ambitious goal of a 60 percent postsecondary completion rate by 2025. Yet, some of those interviewed also critiqued Lumina for developing its strategies internally, with little engagement of grantees and the ultimate beneficiaries of its work – low-income and marginalized students.
Encouragingly, Lumina is now seeking to balance its public policy work with on-the-ground strategies. As it rolls out its new community mobilization program in dozens of cities, many stakeholders are urging the foundation to prioritize deep collaboration and to include local organizations that bring the perspective of students, parents and teachers to the table. Often extra financial resources are needed for underserved communities to have the capacity to engage as equals in coalition with other institutions. Foundation grantmaking can be an indispensable source of this capital.
The Lumina-funded Santa Ana Partnership, featured in this video for Philamplify, is a great example of a community-focused approach, as it works closely with youth and parents in the Santa Ana area to make college education possible for more families.
Foundations like Lumina deserve praise for their public leadership on critical issues, in Lumina’s case, education equity. However, they should hold themselves to a high standard for thoughtful inclusion of affected communities as partners in both shaping and implementing strategy.
What do you think? Do foundations exacerbate inequity when they don’t include intended beneficiaries in formulating and implementing their strategies? How can foundations balance high-level policy work and grassroots mobilization? Join the discussion at Philamplify.org!
Lisa Ranghelli is the director of foundation assessment at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow NCRP on Twitter (@ncrp) and join the #Philamplify conversation.
Leave a Reply