Caitlin Duffy - NCRP

This piece builds upon the February 2015 post, “How Can Philanthropy Support Leaders of Color in the Environmental Movement?”

I imagine that most everyone knows General Mills Box Tops for Education, the school earnings loyalty program that encourages consumers to cut coupons off of General Mills product boxes (which can then be redeemed by schools for 10 cents each). There have been plenty of critiques about the ethicality of the food industry’s influence in public education, but let’s consider something else: once you cut off a box top, what happens to the rest of the box? Is it recycled? Thinking back to my experience with box top collection, and after perusing the corporate philanthropy campaign’s website, there isn’t explicit encouragement to recycle the containers – surely a missed opportunity for impact.

I think of this as an analogy for the environmental movement in philanthropy – in spite of our many successes, there is more impact that can be made. Environmental and ecological justice grantmakers, and nonprofits like NCRP, send out box tops in the form of grants and research, and in return see impact through community mobilization, increased public awareness, better conservation efforts, policy wins and more support for marginalized communities that suffer environmental racism.

NCRP highlighted a number of inspiring stories in its High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy series report, Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders. In addition, the movements for mission investing and fossil fuel divestment, championed by the Mission Investors Exchange, Divest-Invest Philanthropy and others, have continued to gain success in the philanthropic sector. In more recent news, over a dozen funders, including Bloomberg Philanthropies, pledged $60 million to the Sierra Club’s effort to reduce carbon emissions and retire half of coal-fired power plants in the U.S. by 2017.

Yet how can philanthropy expand its responsiveness to the environment, not only through programming but in daily operations? In 2010, Grant Managers Network (GMN) released “Beyond the Recycling Bin: Greening Practices of Grantmakers,” which delved into survey responses from 279 GMN members from across the country. The report explored how foundations conduct grantmaking in environmentally friendly ways and which “greening” practices – from recycling to energy efficiency to green products – they adopt in their operations and organizational culture. GMN stressed that “it is imperative for the philanthropic community to stand at the forefront of the greening movement” given its commitment to “promoting human welfare and advancement in a fiscally responsible and efficient manner.”

Especially in philanthropy, we have the connections and resources necessary to think critically about systems change and adopt strategies for environmental sustainability. Recycling is an important avenue through which we can take more proactive measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which generate global warming and climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency writes that waste prevention and recycling, collectively known as waste reduction, reduce dangerous emissions from energy consumption, incinerators and landfills, and also increase carbon storage in trees. The Natural Resources Defense Council, which was recently in the news for its commitment to diversity in the environmental movement, writes that recycling “protects habitat and biodiversity, and saves energy, water and resources such as trees and metal ores,” in addition to cutting “global warming pollution from manufacturing, landfilling and incinerating.” In our nation’s capital, where NCRP is headquartered, only 23 percent of waste is recycled or composted (versus a national average of 33 percent). That means that most of DC’s waste is sent to landfills or incinerated. In response, NCRP recently installed additional recycling bins and new recycling guides, expanded recycling to include #2-7 plastics and began a staff-wide conversation about waste reduction in our office. Steps to improve recycling in our own office community are natural extensions of our dedication to social and environmental justice.

Not only are we inspired by our members and allies, but we find inspiration from sector leaders such as Pablo Eisenberg, co-founder of NCRP, who over 10 years ago wrote:

“The extraordinary problems that are tearing at the fabric of our society as we enter the twenty-first century — poverty, racism, environmental degradation, lack of health protection, declining trust in government, and many others — can only be tackled by strong policy work, advocacy, and citizen mobilization. They will not be resolved by better services and programs, although these are important. A much greater portion of our nonprofit activities in the future will have to be devoted to policies and actions that can produce constructive change.”

In the spirit of Earth Day, I challenge foundations to prioritize funding high-impact strategies such as civic engagement and advocacy to promote green practices. Not only that, I encourage you to implement such practices and initiate a green evolution within your organization. For more ideas and conversation starters, check out the Story of Stuff and Terracycle, and share other tips with us on social media!

Caitlin Duffy is the project associate for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Even those outside the nonprofit sector are starting to notice the glaring lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the environmental movement’s leadership. In fact, one recent headline from The Guardian asked, “Why are so many white men trying to save the planet without the rest of us?” Some observers accuse mainstream green groups of having a race problem or “green ceiling.” Despite growing awareness of the disparate impacts of pollution and climate change on low-income people of color, large environmental organizations remain fairly homogenous. The situation raises important questions about the role of philanthropy in the environmental movement. Do grantmakers encourage their environmentally-focused grantees to conduct outreach to communities of color for hiring and recruitment, and do the same themselves? Does a lack of foundation funding for environmental leaders of color and grassroots initiatives, including funding for leadership development, contribute to the problem?

Two years ago, NCRP published Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders as part of our “High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy” report series. Author Sarah Hansen, executive director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association from 1998-2005, advanced moral and strategic rationales for increased funding for grassroots environmental efforts that engage communities of color, and for more diversity in the racial composition of the movement. Moreover, based on an analysis of data from the National Center for Charitable Statistics, NCRP found that “funding resources generally go to larger, national organizations, even while the number of new grassroots environmental groups has grown significantly.”

The report outlined how environment and climate funders tend to favor top-down approaches to grantmaking and public policy by funding larger, well-resourced organizations. NCRP maintained that environmental funders need to invest more in high-impact grassroots organizing so that communities can mobilize and demand environmental change from the bottom-up. To support environmental justice, steps that foundations can take to support environmental justice include:

Directly funding grassroots initiatives led by and for marginalized communities.
Pushing for greater diversity among their staff and that of their larger environmental grantees.
Motivating large mainstream organizations to partner with grassroots organizations.

For example, Inside Philanthropy just reported on the Libra Foundation’s application of a justice lens to their environmental philanthropy – part of a growing trend in which “more climate funders are getting attuned to the role of low-income groups in climate work.”

In addition, Grist recently published an interview with Rhea Suh, the new president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who brings experience as a program officer at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The daughter of Korean immigrants, she is the first woman of color to lead a major mainstream environmental organization. Her hiring reflects growing awareness of the need to hire more people of color and target diverse populations to find talent. In the interview, Suh comments on the role of philanthropy and states, “I think it is both the responsibility of foundations – which have, in some ways, the luxury of thinking about trends, perspectives and opportunities – to think about where they’re going to get long-term gains and significant opportunities [from community-based organizations].”

Both Hansen’s report and NCRP’s “Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities” report series, which document the impacts of advocacy and organizing, found that grassroots environmental groups, especially those led by communities of color, tend to be the most under-resourced and fragile. A more equitable distribution of philanthropic dollars among environmental justice nonprofits could help ensure equity at all levels of the fight for a more sustainable and environmentally sustainable future. As Hansen noted in NCRP’s report, “especially going forward, environmental advocacy cannot succeed if its leadership does not reflect the communities it seeks to mobilize and benefit.”

For this reason, it’s no surprise that many have welcomed the October announcement of Green 2.0, an innovative collaboration between GuideStar, Green 2.0 and the D5 Coalition. The initiative will gather diversity data on environmental nonprofits to supplement current data on operations and finances, and bring more transparency to the environmental movement. Support for the initiative was pledged by philanthropic leaders from the Kresge Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and W.K. Kellogg Foundation, in addition to the NRDC’s former president, Frances Beinecke. The collaborators urge organizations to pledge to submit data on the gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity and ability/disability of their board members, staff and volunteers by the end of this month. Both green groups and their funders can take advantage of this opportunity to diversify the movement and hold each other accountable by providing this information.

Do you think reporting will lead to greater diversity? What do you think it will take to bring more leaders of color into the environmental movement? Tell us what you think!

Caitlin Duffy is the project associate for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

This post originally appeared on the GrantCraft blog on September 16, 2014.

If a foundation sees itself as accountable to the communities it serves, how can it be as transparent as possible about key decisions that affect those communities? While voluntary disclosure of financial information online is commendable and sorely needed in philanthropy, funders must expand their mindset of openness. There is a need for a comprehensive approach to transparency that goes beyond figures on a website; foundation leadership, from board members to staff, need to think critically about how to communicate their approaches and solicit feedback.

At the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), the complex relationship between transparency and accountability is at the center of Philamplify. Philamplify is a new initiative that brings honest feedback to grantmakers by conducting rigorous assessments of some of the country’s top foundations. To prepare these reviews, our team combs through publications, searches online databases, reviews publicly available foundation documents, surveys hundreds of grantees, and interviews a wide array of stakeholders. In evaluating whether a foundation operates transparently, we look for disclosure of key information on the funder’s website and through other avenues, such as Foundation Center’s Glasspockets initiative. We publish the final assessments on philamplify.org, where readers can engage in a discussion about the findings and recommendations, thus opening the conversation beyond the confines of a typical foundation assessment to everyone whose lives are touched by grantmakers.

During the first round of assessments, many surveyed grantees spoke of how much they appreciate transparent communication with funders. Grant recipients consistently requested “three C’s” relevant to transparency: convene, collaborate, and communicate. Such calls for increased contact with foundation staff are evidence of grantee interest in a partnership that goes beyond financial support. Transparency plays an important role in such a relationship. As shown by the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s recent report, Foundation Transparency: What Nonprofits Want, nonprofits want more transparent communication about learning, assessment, and impact.

For example, grantees of the Philamplify-assessed Daniels Fund often spoke of the actual and potential value of site visits, e-mails, and phone calls with program officers and opportunities to speak with executive leadership. In regards to positive aspects of the partnership, one grantee wrote, “The Daniels Fund is one of the few funders that make an effort to visit with us, communicate with us on a regular basis, and maintain a relationship based on mutual concern for the populations we serve.” However, some grantees conveyed concern about the apparent disconnect between program officers and executive leadership, particularly regarding the grant renewal process.

In our assessment of the William Penn Foundation, grantees and stakeholders expressed confusion over recent changes in leadership and strategic direction about which the foundation communicated ineffectively. Sample feedback included comments such as, “The status of the Foundation’s recent strategic planning process could have been better communicated” and “The recent leadership transitions have raised question for the future of funding in this sector.” In July, Nonprofit Quarterly reported that the foundation’s managing director resigned, marking another major leadership change in less than six months. In such instances, the lack of transparency about what drove these major decisions unsettled grantees and influenced the perceptions of other important stakeholders, including peers.

In philanthropy, robust, authentic discussion and constructive debate challenge us all to improve and help ensure that we hold each other accountable to the public good. Grantees are vested in the success of their funders, and as evidenced by Philamplify’s findings, they offer valuable lessons for the sector. When a funder engages in meaningful transparency, grantees and other philanthropic stakeholders benefit by better understanding the foundation’s mission, operations, strategies, activities, and performance.

How does your foundation maintain transparent, two-way communication with grantees and the communities they serve?

Caitlin Duffy is the project assistant for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

In my role as a research assistant for NCRP’s Philamplify initiative, I have found that “transparency” is defined and applied differently from one foundation to the next. Not only is it rare to find details like contact information, internal policies and strategic plans, but I also found that it can be difficult to source seemingly simple things such as documentation around foundation strategies, grantmaking guidelines or even a list of organizations and projects that receive funding.

Even when such materials are provided, increased disclosure and transparency are not ends in and of themselves. Rather, they allow philanthropists, political leaders, activists and everyday citizens to better hold foundations accountable to the public good. In that, these demands are similar to those advocating for freedom of information in government and corporate responsibility in global markets.

Philanthropic institutions provide vital support for organizations that serve the public interest. Yet, foundations possess an ambiguous identity that is neither completely public nor private, and which operates at the intersection between government and the private sector.

While historically foundations have been created with capital from elite private ventures, they fund services that benefit society, and thus enjoy tax-exempt status as nonprofit entities. This dual nature has for years spurred debate over the public versus private nature of a foundation’s tax-exempt assets, such as whether foundations have a responsibility to redress institutional and societal inequities or if they should be required to release internal documents for public scrutiny.

While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Tax Reform Act of 1969 mandate that foundations annually file the 990-PF tax return, which provides valuable insight into their charitable operations, such documents are not reader friendly for the larger public. Furthermore, voluntary annual reports are often limited to impact stories and basic grantmaking numbers. The task of making sense of what information is provided, and investigating what is left unexplained, is left to academics, journalists and interested citizens.

In spite of the ease of online research, it can be a struggle to find information and data about foundations’ grantmaking practices. For decades, organizations such as NCRP have advocated for the maximization of philanthropic accountability and responsiveness by calling for stronger oversight and enforcement of standards, such as elements for self-regulation and foundation transparency. Today, transparency advocates are more widespread than ever.

Not only are foundations themselves growing in their willingness to communicate and share, among them the James Irvine Foundation and the Wallace Foundation, but groups such as the Foundation Center and GuideStar have revolutionized our understanding of foundation operations. Their databases facilitate access to a foundation’s annual grant sizes and recipients, assets, expenses and staff lists. In addition, the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Inside Philanthropy and NCRP’s Philamplify, also offer tools for foundation analysis and invite dialogue about what works well and what can be done better in philanthropy.

The Foundation Center, through its Glasspockets initiative, strongly advocates for increased transparency in philanthropy, promoting the more general benefits of funder transparency as:

Strengthened foundation credibility
Increased public trust
Improved relationships with grantees and regions served
Reduced duplication of effort among foundations that care about the same issues
Facilitation of greater collaboration and collective problem solving
Cultivation of a community of shared learning among foundations

Despite the clear advantages, only 66 foundations among the thousands in operation in the United States have submitted profiles on the Glasspockets website. A recent article on a new guide to transparency by GrantCraft, a division of the Foundation Center, cited a grantmaker survey from which “three quarters of respondents reported a greater demand for foundation transparency during the past five years.” The question remains: will foundations respond to that demand?

How has transparency led to accountability in your experience? What standards would you like to see applied to foundation transparency to advance a mindset of openness in philanthropy?

Caitlin Duffy is the project assistant for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow NCRP on Twitter (@ncrp) and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Founded by the former president of Coca-Cola, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation is as much of an Atlanta institution as the company Woodruff helmed for over 30 years. The foundation’s largest grants fund institutions such as Emory University, the Robert W. Woodruff Arts Center and the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center at Ichauway, demonstrating its dedication to education, culture and conservation. Yet, with 82 percent of its assets ($2.3 billion of $2.8 billion) invested in the Coca-Cola Company, the Woodruff Foundation maintains a risky investment strategy, which compromises its ability to accomplish its mission.

NCRP’s recent Philamplify assessment of the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation recommended that the Woodruff Foundation diversify its holdings to allow for more flexible and strategic grantmaking. Author Elizabeth Myrick explains:

“In spite of the fact that Coca-Cola is the source of the foundation’s wealth and has performed well over time, such a risky investment strategy limits the ability of the foundation to make certain kinds of grants. The volatility of a highly concentrated portfolio makes providing multi-year and general operating support more challenging.”

Here are three reasons why the Woodruff Foundation, and other foundations, should diversify their stock portfolios:

1. One-stock investment ties fortunes to a single company, which may experience hard times.

While the Coca-Cola Company dominates the beverage industry and has consistently ranked as one of the world’s most valuable brands, it is not immune to fluctuations in the market. For instance, Coca-Cola stock declined considerably in the early 2000s, which led Emory University, similarly endowed with Coca-Cola money, to divest from the company.

2. Reliance on one source of income can make a foundation more cautious in its grantmaking.

Woodruff tends to prioritize large, long-established organizations and shies away from newer and smaller nonprofits. The foundation also generally refrains from providing multi-year grants and general operating support.

3. Monolithic investment may prevent a foundation from engaging in mission-related investing or result in a foundation being primarily invested in a company whose practices are at odds with its mission.

For example, the Woodruff Foundation supports environmental and health causes. However, Coca-Cola has been critiqued for negative environmental impact of its manufacturing practices, especially in India and Latin America, and health effects of its products.

There are a number of notable organizations that have completed the process of divesting from one primary source of stock revenue, and they have all come out the stronger for it. Examples from the philanthropic sector include the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which moved to diversify its holdings and sell Hewlett-Packard shares after 2001. In addition, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation successfully reduced ownership of Kellogg Company stock beginning in 2005.

The Lilly Endowment is one of the more outstanding cases of diversification. Founded in 1937 through gifts of stock in Eli Lilly and Company, a top ten pharmaceutical company, the foundation bestows more than $270 million in grants each year, drawing from a $7.7 billion endowment. In 2006, the Endowment adopted an asset diversification plan to sell $2 billion of its Eli Lilly stock. In April 2014, the Lilly Endowment resumed selloff, which had been suspended since the 2008 financial crisis.

While Woodruff will surely maintain its relationship with Coca-Cola, should the fate of Atlanta and the Woodruff Foundation’s grantees be so closely tied to the Coca-Cola Company? Make sure to visit Philamplify, where you can comment and vote on NCRP’s recommendations for the Woodruff Foundation!

Special thanks to Kevin Laskowski, NCRP senior research and policy associate, for his assistance with this post.

Caitlin Duffy is the project assistant for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow NCRP on Twitter (@ncrp) and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Upon the launch of Philamplify, we asked Facebook users from the Philadelphia region for their input on the grantmaking of the William Penn Foundation, one of the first foundations we assessed. Considering that the William Penn Foundation will award $90 million in grants in this year alone, we posed the question, “Where would you like to see that money go?” Some 110 individuals submitted comments and highlighted issues of importance to Philadelphians, including the three priorities of the foundation: education, the arts, and watershed amenities.

The feedback pointed to strong concerns in thematic areas such as education and public schools. Among the online remarks, 93 comments sounded calls for investment in Philadelphia schools, including support for technology, educational materials and school staffing. These insights speak to the reality of life in the City of Brotherly Love, given that the School District of Philadelphia has suffered from devastating budget cuts and struggles with some of the worst performing schools in the country. The challenges facing Philadelphia’s schools are complex, with 82 percent of public school students coming from economically disadvantaged families.

One community member responded, “Education, upgrade the technology and the textbooks that students do not have enough of.”Another elaborated, “Renovate the buildings. Re-open the schools shut down due to budget cuts to bring the class sizes down. Bring back the arts in schools. If you invest in our children now…they will invest later as adults rather than moving to other cities after going to college.”

These concerns are in line with the William Penn Foundation’s strategic shift in 2012 that narrowed the foundation’s focus in pre-K and K-12 education work. Their “Closing the Achievement Gap” program prioritizes educational opportunities for children from low-income families. On its website the foundation explains, “As the most important instrument of social mobility and economic opportunity, our schools must do a better job of preparing economically disadvantaged students for later success.”

NCRP’s new comprehensive assessment of the William Penn Foundation’s grantmaking and operations gathered feedback from local community leaders through surveys and interviews. Some of their concerns were echoed by social media commentators, and strengthen the report’s findings. Philly constituents wanted to see the foundation exercise more public leadership, support more parent and student led school improvement efforts and also focus on poverty and income inequality. Thirty Facebook commentators also thought that the foundation should be addressing issues of poverty and employment.

Author Lisa Ranghelli writes that the foundation should “share learning from Closing the Achievement Gap and exercise leadership to help ensure all low-income and marginalized students have access to a good education, including by promoting strong accountability across all K–12 education providers in the city.”

Is it enough that the William Penn Foundation has focused a third of its grantmaking to improve pre-K and K-12 schools, or does it also need to be more of a public leader and use its bully pulpit to mobilize Philadelphians for education? Visit Philamplify to comment and vote on NCRP’s recommendations for the William Penn Foundation!

Caitlin Duffy is the project assistant for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow NCRP on Twitter (@ncrp) and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Low-income students who are high achievers in high school often face demoralizing challenges when it comes to college. During the application process, they confront obstacles such as confusing financial aid forms, high application fees and family obligations, plus the task of choosing the right school. Once enrolled, they run into even more disheartening hurdles. Inadequate mentorship or support, a lack of academic preparation, expensive tuition, doubts about belonging and a belief in fixed intelligence can result in students feeling a sense of helplessness and failure. In worst case scenarios, this can lead them to drop out of college.

Paul Tough writes in The New York Times article “Who Gets to Graduate?”:

“More than 40 percent of American students who start at four-year colleges haven’t earned a degree after six years. If you include community-college students in the tabulation, the dropout rate is more than half, worse than any other country except Hungary.”

Tough emphasizes that whether a college student will graduate is disproportionately dependent on parental income, and much less on ability or scoring on standardized tests. Inequality in higher education correlates more broadly to income inequality in that lack of a college degree inhibits economic mobility and an individual’s chance of escaping poverty. Policymakers, colleges and foundations are increasingly adopting efforts to diminish the graduation gap between low-income students and more affluent, advantaged ones.

NCRP recently examined a foundation whose grantmaking single-mindedly seeks to strengthen equity and attainment in higher education. Lumina Foundation for Education was one of three foundations assessed as part of NCRP’s Philamplify initiative, which encourages anyone interested in the role of philanthropy to give feedback on what foundations do well and what they can improve.

In Victor Kuo’s Philamplify assessment of Lumina Foundation, “Can a Champion for College Attainment Up Its Game?” he explores how the foundation is addressing systematic inequalities in higher education. The stakes are high, as Kuo notes, “postsecondary completion disparities contribute to income inequality and make bitterly real the failure of the nation’s aspirations for equity.” Encouragingly, Lumina’s strategic plan for 2013-2016 “explicitly addresses the need for equity in postsecondary education, especially for first-generation students, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants and adults traditionally underrepresented among college students and graduates.”

Lumina seeks policy change and systems reform to achieve Goal 2025: 60 percent of Americans obtaining a certificate, credential or degree by 2025. The foundation provides grants for community-based, collective approaches such as the Latino Student Success (LSS) initiative. The project fosters collaborative partnerships in key metropolitan areas, such as the Santa Ana Partnership in California, featured in this video:

The work being done by LSS and the Santa Ana Partnership goes beyond advocating an increased responsiveness of a university to the needs of its underserved students. In addition, it brings Latino families and local businesses into the campaign to promote Latino college attainment. This collaborative community model incorporates multiple measures for student success by engaging both students and community members in pursuit of systemic change.

NCRP’s Lumina assessment highlights the importance of adequate resources and capacity on the ground to implement place-based initiatives, such as LSS and Lumina’s recently launched 20-site Metropolitan Partnerships for Attainment.

How can educational institutions and local communities partner to replicate these promising practices? Should public universities be required to pursue such interventions? How can federal and state policy support wide adoption of proven strategies?

To learn more about Lumina Foundation’s ambitious college completion goals, and NCRP’s recommendations for greater impact, visit www.philamplify.org. Add your voice to the conversation on what philanthropy can do to improve higher education, empower students and foster more college graduates in our communities.

Caitlin Duffy is the project assistant for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow NCRP on Twitter (@ncrp) and join the #Philamplify conversation.

This Earth Day, Start a Green Evolution in Your Foundation or Nonprofit!