Every city has just six artists. Or six community leaders. Or six innovators. I’m kidding … maybe your city has seven. I make this joke because in just about every community I visit, there are about six people that show up on everyone’s list for funding, for recognition, for recommendation. These six artists, leaders and innovators are almost always doing really amazing work, work that is powerful, important and in need of support. They’re at the top of everyone’s list for a reason – but they can’t do everything.

Effective place-based change needs to be rooted in broad and diverse citizen power. Every community needs a steady supply of leaders, artists and innovators with the capacity, agency and skills to have a positive impact – not just a chosen few. To contribute to long-term impact and equity, we need to look beyond, or behind, the usual suspects and leaders. Nonprofits and foundations need to work in a hyper-local way to help build and recognize leadership that is truly from and of the communities we hope to serve. But how should we go about this?

In our work at Springboard for the Arts, we are obsessed with systems and mechanisms that support power and agency of local creative leaders. Our goal is to foster direct relationships and capacity in the communities where we work, and we measure success by the degree to which those relationships can continue without us. (If you want to see more of what our place-based work looks like, this video documentary and toolkit are good examples.)

Here are five lessons we have learned about what works, and what doesn’t, to build leadership and relationship capacity in our communities:

  • Support lots of little projects.

Paradoxically, when it comes to place-based grantmaking, it seems to be harder for many organizations to make small investments, particularly in individuals or small, informal groups. But if you’re trying to encourage new leadership in a community, then there need to be on-ramp experiences that introduce people to each other and provide opportunities for them test out new skills and build relationships. Supporting a lot of small projects instead of (or in addition to) one large project helps build a diversity of expression and strategies. It also takes the pressure off any one group or person to speak for the entire community. You never know what great idea or person will show up at your party if you send out a lot of invitations. Supporting many small projects also provides the opportunity for grantees and grantmakers to learn from each other as they see these small experiments play out.

  • Keep it low-risk.

Another benefit of small project support is that the stakes for each individual project are not so high that they become a barrier to experimentation or new thinking. Often organizations skip this important seed planting, watering and cultivating step and jump directly to trying out large-scale solutions before the community has the necessary relationships, trust and social capital in place to make them work. This is like asking someone to marry you before you go on any dates. Starting with multiple small bets also means that not every project needs to be 100 percent successful or high profile. Keeping projects modest in scale and commitment invites more people to the table to try their hand at helping their neighborhood. If you expect people and organizations to collaborate, it’s critical to provide support for trials so that people can learn how to work together and build relationships organically.

  • Provide simple mechanisms.

Make it easy for people to work together with simple and clear entry points and as few rules and restrictions as possible. If your foundation’s systems are built for very large investments or a high degree of oversight, you may want to work with a trusted intermediary or partner who can administer small, simple investments and ideally provide technical support. Linking training with project support to allow people to try out the skills they’re learning can be an effective combination.

  • Pay attention to language.

What you call the project or capacity-building support matters. Sometimes designating it as “support” instead of a grant, mini-grant or funding helps attract a broader diversity of people, some of whom might be intimidated by or uninterested in a traditional grant program. It also helps create a non-competitive culture for the program. On the other hand, for some communities, being awarded a “grant” carries a certain cachet that can help validate their work and leverage additional support. Although it seems small, it is important to be intentional about the language you use and keep your stakeholders in mind.

  • Evaluate the relationship, not just the project!

This is probably the most important lesson we have learned. An investment in leadership or capacity building is an investment in relationships and process. If you choose to support small projects, the emphasis should be on the quality of the relationships that are formed, not the outcome of the project. For example, if you support artists to design projects with small neighborhood businesses, success means that the relationship continues and grows beyond the project, not only that the mural that is painted.

These five lessons are strategies that have worked well for us, enabling us to reach new leaders that have surprised us (and sometimes themselves) with incredible creativity, wisdom and passion for helping their communities grow and thrive. We’ve also learned that every situation is different. So while not all of these lessons will apply to your community, I do hope they will spark some new thinking to help you tap into and support the most important asset that exists in every place: the people who live in, work in and love that place.

For more information about place-based philanthropy, check out the NCRP webinar I recently participated in: “PIMBY: Philanthropy in my Backyard.”

Laura Zabel is executive director of Springboard for the Arts. Follow @laurazabel on Twitter and join the #PIMBY conversation.

CC image by eflon. 

 

The Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) has worked in Detroit since 1990, investing close to $200 million in grants, loans and equity into neighborhoods in the city. Over the past five years, LISC’s work has focused on neighborhood investment around affordable and supportive housing, health clinics, grocery stores, safety initiatives, prosperity models and home repair financing for existing homeowners. While LISC continues to focus on housing as critical to stabilizing and strengthening neighborhoods, our work has evolved to reflect a more comprehensive concept of neighborhood revitalization that includes parks, public transportation, quality grocery stores, safe streets and access to good schools, health care, jobs and other amenities that make communities vital, appealing places to live, work and do business.

To do this work, LISC receives crucial support from the Kresge Foundation, the subject of a recent Philamplify report. I was excited to participate in NCRP’s recent webinar, “PIMBY: Philanthropy in My Back Yard” that connects the report to the practice of place-based grantmaking, and to discuss how foundation investment in communities is a prime strategy for long-term success.

In 2012, Detroit LISC began a place-based initiative to help build sustainable communities in five neighborhoods: two are in Southwest Detroit and have largely Hispanic populations (one of which is adjacent to the downtown central business district and has begun to attract entrepreneurs and people looking to move back to the city). One is a historically stable, middle class neighborhood in Northwest Detroit that was negatively impacted by the foreclosure crisis. Another is in a key location north of the city center along a new transit line scheduled to open in 2017. The fifth is a neighborhood in Northeast Detroit with a high concentration of children and returning residents but little real estate investment.

After years of disinvestment, Detroit is experiencing an influx of private and public dollars that’s reshaping the downtown area and drawing new residents in search of dynamic urban environments. As LISC continues to invest in place-based work in neighborhoods beyond the downtown area, however, the issue of equity is at the forefront. How can we work with other funders to ensure that their investments help neighborhoods offer a rich mixture of housing and better access to jobs and opportunity for people at all income levels?

First, we can recognize the grassroots leadership already embedded in communities and encourage those leaders to come together and create their own blueprints for change. LISC’s placemaking strategy begins with a four to six-month participatory planning process that engages neighborhood residents, business owners and institutional stakeholders in identifying priorities for neighborhood improvement, articulating measurable goals and objectives and creating a work plan. The planning process incorporates any existing plans and strategies to build a framework for long-term neighborhood investment and improving quality of life. We need to ensure that the process is inclusive and that a diverse range of stakeholders sit at the table. Too often, stakeholders leading community-based organizations may not live or work in the communities they represent or have little in common with the people who do. Finding and elevating neighborhood voices gives credibility to transformational community development work. Without that credibility, there is little buy-in from residents and any transformation taking place in their communities appears exclusive.

Next, what we measure matters. Residents and funders sometimes define success differently, so using two sets of overlapping metrics allows us to take into account both perspectives. Funders may emphasize market indicators while community stakeholders may emphasize other metrics. When LISC measures quality of life in a neighborhood, we look at indicators such as employment, the number of mortgages in foreclosure, housing tenure and changes in population. Residents and community activists, for their part, may define success as physical improvements to parks, increased use of public space, greater access to quality education and jobs and grassroots engagement in community safety initiatives. They may also place greater value on relationship-building or more inclusive development, led by developers from their own neighborhoods.

Finally, we can build reciprocal partnerships by asking for community assistance through formal meetings and one-on-one settings. All the members of a partnership benefit from acknowledging that equitable community development is hard work over the long haul: it can take more than five years before we see significant results. To that end, we can foster equity by moving away from funding disparate new initiatives and single-purpose transactions and focusing instead on investments that consider the community as a whole, and that connect real estate development with the cultural, social and economic needs of a neighborhood as well.

To learn more about place-based grantmaking, check out the recording of NCRP’s PIMBY webinar now!

Tahirih Ziegler is executive director of Detroit LISC. Follow @TahirihZLISC on Twitter and join the #PIMBY conversation.

CC image of Detroit by Digital 3rd Eye.

“All organizing is science fiction … because whenever we envision a world without war, without prisons, without inequality, we are producing speculative fiction,” writes Walidah Imarisha in Octavia’s Brood. This ability to envision and work toward future worlds not bound by the constrictions of current reality requires the fervent cultivation of a radical imagination and a forward-facing faith. It is often our younger leaders who are most apt to engage in this kind of courageous and creative speculative thought and action. The Chronicle of Philanthropy‘s new 40 Under 40 list reflects this future-oriented leadership.

And the future these leaders are imagining and working toward is glorious. It is the dreamed-of time where the scourge of anti-Black structural racism is once and for all eliminated, because the Black community has built the necessary power to ensure that all Black lives matter and that the Black community thrives. It’s a tomorrow where we have perfected a true sharing economy that shares prosperity and the benefits of technological innovation with everyone, especially rural and underdeveloped communities. It is a future where welcoming communities are created based on a recognition of our common destiny, and newcomers and those on the social margins are not treated as if they are strangers in a strange land.

In the meantime, I think there’s also room for a future with greater recognition for those who are under 40 but under the radar. These unsung leaders embolden the vibrancy of our democracy and the prospects for our collective future through their work. In this future, people are honored and rewarded based on the worth that they bring to communities – not merely their net worth.

Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector can serve as foundational pillars of a bridge to the tomorrow envisioned by many of the leaders selected by the Chronicle, but it will require a fundamental reorientation of our priorities and approach in at least two areas:

  • Our sector needs to prioritize achieving social, racial and economic justice and equity as our primary purpose. This means adopting a systems change approach grounded in an equity analysis that is centered on improving the conditions and opportunities for those who are least well-off in our society. This also means significantly increasing funding for community organizing, advocacy and impact investing.
  • Philanthropy must develop a truly responsive and collaborative process that listens to, follows the lead of and builds authentic partnerships with those who are most affected by the issues that we address through our grantmaking. This will improve the practice and impact of philanthropy, and serve as a powerful model for the kind of responsiveness and accountability from the public and private sectors that is necessary for creating a more fair and just future for us all.

We must work toward a future in which combating systemic economic and social inequity is the primary focus of philanthropy – showing that we recognize it as the unequivocal social and political imperative for our country. Another world is possible if we can but bring our radical imagination into reality.

Nat Chioke Williams, Ph.D. is executive director of Hill-Snowdon Foundation.

CC image by Buckaroo Bay.

This post first appeared on PhilanTopic on December 3, 2015.

When I came to Surdna Foundation in 2007, I spent several months just talking with people about the foundation and what they knew of it. Thanks in large measure to the extraordinary family and executive leadership up to that point, Surdna had a stellar reputation for creative, impactful grantmaking. But as I dug deeper, I realized that Surdna staff and board didn’t have the language to explain why we funded the things we were funding. We couldn’t articulate why some things felt right, while others simply didn’t make the grade. I helped us get started on a process to carefully examine what we’d been doing for the previous twenty years — and to think together about what it was that was the glue that held that work together. Most of us could feel it and even identify which grants were bull’s eyes, and which weren’t.

Several concepts emerged from that examination, concepts that formed the basis of our new mission statement: family, community, sustainability, and social justice. These core concepts felt both broadly consistent with the values that had been set forth by our founder, John E. Andrus, nearly one hundred years ago, and relevant to the work we wanted to do going forward.

Our story suggests that sometimes it only takes the simple step of naming what it is that you care about to begin the journey toward more effective, responsive philanthropy. Since adopting our new mission statement, social justice has become the key to understanding who we are as a family foundation and what work we want to do to help communities thrive across the United States. We’re proud to have this process featured in a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: Families Funding Change: How Social Justice Giving Honors Our Roots and Empowers Communities.

We share with NCRP the view that empowering communities to solve the problems of poverty, injustice, and inequity should become more prominent in the work of foundations, especially family foundations. We have long supported the work of NCRP and the principles they stand for. We have done so even as we have been on our own journey as a funder working towards those principles. We have always believed that learning is a key part of who we are and, really, core to what makes good philanthropy. I encourage you to read the Families Funding Change report and consider how Surdna’s experience with social justice philanthropy, and the experiences of other featured funders, can inform your own work.

By choosing to frame our mission as one “grounded in principles of social justice,” the board made explicit their understanding that equity and social justice must be a frame of reference for all of our work. Indeed, this framework reflects the values of the family today. Of course, a mission statement is merely words on a page unless it is put at the center of the work. And with our board’s leadership, we have kept that mission in mind as we have built grantmaking programs and revamped the foundation strategies and staff. It has been a remarkable thing to see how our explicit naming of social justice has shaped the foundation from the bottom to the top.

Social justice helped us clarify our work — both our strategies and who benefits from those strategies. But social justice is so much more than a term; it is at the center of how we foster sustainable communities. Each social justice funder must define the term in a way that is consistent with their philanthropic intentions. Family funders especially have to find that expression of social justice most comfortable for them. At Surdna, when we speak about our work, we start by acknowledging that inequity exists in many forms, including country of origin, class, race, immigration status, sexual orientation and ability, among other group identities. And our grant strategies explicitly focus on restoring a fundamental sense of fairness; confronting structural barriers and systemic inequities; and changing power relations. This approach not only gets results; it’s in keeping with the Andrus family values that motivate all Surdna does.

As we built new programs and strategies that were consistent with the new mission, something remarkable began to happen. Not only did this process force us to reflect on what changes we needed to make in our work, but it also illustrated the urgency of bringing on staff members and new philanthropic partners and grantees that were committed to this work. It encouraged us to bring our now clearly stated principles into conversations about art, economic opportunity, and environmental work. This clarity about our social justice orientation also reshaped our board, attracting remarkable new members both from the Andrus family and beyond who brought with them fresh new perspectives.

I am optimistic that if more family funders take a step back to closely examine the role they want their philanthropic assets to play in the long-term accomplishment of their goals — whatever they may be — they will see the enormous potential for impact with more grants for nonprofit advocacy, community organizing, and civic engagement.

Surdna Foundation has a social justice grantmaking story to tell, and not because we have it all figured out or because we have done something unprecedented. Our journey over the past several decades has not been heroic or extraordinary, but there are experiences we’ve had and lessons we’ve learned that might be helpful to other family foundations considering a shift toward social justice grantmaking.

To some, dedicating ourselves to fundamentally combating systemic injustice may sound too bold or even misaligned with some family foundations’ missions. But if progress toward the type of broad social change many family donors envision is ever to be achieved, almost by necessity social justice must be an animating value in their giving.

Phillip Henderson is president of the Surdna Foundation.

A version of this post originally appeared on EPIP’s blog.

Late last year, I was struck when someone on Twitter asked, “What should be the theme song for the social justice movement?” My immediate, almost instinctive response was “We Are One” by Maze featuring Frankie Beverly.

On the surface it may appear to be a love song about a couple that needs to get over their mess so they can have a better relationship. However, as an activist and lover of my people, I have long thought about the subtle messages that songs, and other works of art, have for the global struggle for liberation, justice and peace. Believing that unity is one of the most important principles of a nation, and that love is the most powerful force in our world, I understand the messages of “We Are One” to be at once a proclamation of our love for one another, the need for us to get over our issues and get to work, a formula for the ultimate victory in our struggle for liberation and a pathway to articulating the collective vision for the kind of justice and peace that will right this world. I know, that’s a lot to get out of a slow jam.

The closing plenary of PolicyLink’s recent Equity Summit 2015, Building a Multiracial, Multigenerational Equity Movement, was an especially powerful example of “We Are One” in action. The panel featured many of my professional sheroes and heroes, but what happened was even far beyond my expectations. Not only were there representatives from different races and different generations, but almost every difference (with the exception of physical ability) that makes the United States the most diverse country on the planet was on the stage.

The panelists’ professional affiliations and accomplishments also represented a breadth of experiences and philosophies. This could have potentially devolved into a public “fight” to assert who was the most oppressed and which issue the most critical, but something else happened. There was a sharing amongst the moderator and the panelists that took the now-seemingly cliché notion of “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” out of blog posts titles, Facebook cover photos and campaign rhetoric, and placed it before the 3,000 organizers, activists, funders, practitioners and officials gathered at the Summit, and the thousands more watching online.

The moderator, Dr. Robert Ross of The California Endowment, opened the discussion by declaring that his generation, the civil rights generation, has had at best “a mixed record” in running their leg of the race for liberation. From this point, you could almost see the tension released from the shoulders of the younger panelists – DeRay McKesson of We the Protesters, Carmen Perez of The Gathering for Justice and Linda Sansour of the Arab American Association of New York. At the same time, the more senior panelists – Nick Tilsen of Thunder Valley, Geoffrey Canada of Harlem Children’s Zone, Mary Kay Henry of SEIU and Stewart Kwoh of Asian Americans Advancing Justice – raised their heads. Both groups were now prepared to listen and to share.

The very practical need to view the numerous battles against injustice happening around the world as one struggle, was expressed well by Geoffrey Canada: “We are a movement of movements because we are fighting the same people. There is no white supremacist that hates Black people and loves Native Americans.” This sentiment was also summarized when Nick Tilsen shared how the Lakota Nation views the relationships between generations. He explained all Lakota are responsible for seven generations – the three that preceded him, the three that will follow him and Tilsen’s own, the seventh. Fittingly, there were seven panelists seated in a row, with Tilsen in the very middle.

A belief in the interconnectedness of people and the many struggles against injustice in the world has been a quiet, but prominent guide in the way I worked throughout my career, and lived my life. Over the past three years, this belief has been at the forefront of my mind, and I have consciously worked to be a connector of people representing the communities, organizations, philanthropies, corporations, governments and other entities impacting the lives of the oppressed. In many ways, my philosophy and view of our world is captured by the PolicyLink’s Equity Manifesto:

“This is equity: just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential. Unlocking the promise of the nation by unleashing the promise in us all.”

I am so grateful for the opportunity to attend Equity Summit 2015 as a member of EPIP’s PCN Delegation. The energy and renewal that came from learning and sharing valuable lessons with 3,000 of the most brilliant and committed people working for our collective liberation will be with me for the rest of my life. Indeed, we are one!

Bomani Johnson is senior director of programs and partnerships at DC Trust. He was a member of EPIP’s PCN Delegation. Follow @EBomani on Twitter.

NCRP’s recent report Families Funding Change: How Social Justice Giving Honors Our Roots and Strengthens Communities highlights the important legacy of family foundations supporting social justice – as well as the relatively scant family philanthropy support for social justice work today. The report rightly points out that the perception that social justice philanthropy is a “political third rail” is the greatest barrier that keeps family foundations from engaging in it. I have heard dozens of family foundation trustees say that, while they personally are interested in increasing their family foundation’s social justice support, they “can’t go there” with the family board. It’s too “political” and “divisive.” They’d “be opening a can of worms.”

As a trustee of a family foundation that exclusively funds social justice – and where our all-family board’s politics span the spectrum – I find this particular line of reasoning puzzling. At Hill-Snowdon Foundation, we have found common ground in shared values that are fundamentally democratic (little d) in nature, and largely apolitical. We believe that we are stewards of a public trust which should be used to reduce, not reinforce, income inequality. We believe that people most affected by broken systems should have an integral role in figuring out how to improve them. We believe that growing inequity is not in anyone’s long-term best interest.

But the most powerful value that unified our board around social justice philanthropy was a shared desire for impact. After years of making grants to direct service organizations, schools, medical organizations, etc., we couldn’t point to much progress. It felt like we were putting Band Aids on wounds that kept getting bigger. Our limited resources may never eradicate the need for the bandages, but they might be able to help staunch the blood flow. And indeed, nearly two decades after our shift to social justice philanthropy, we have contributed to significant improvements for marginalized communities, including gains in living wage campaigns, quality affordable housing, policies that protect undocumented workers from unfair treatment and successful alternatives to punitive school discipline policies that push students into the prison system.

We can see the footprint of our grantees in many of the major policy changes that positively impact low-income families and communities across the country. As a family board, we’ve become more invested and engaged as we witness these tangible outcomes and celebrate them together.

To be clear: we didn’t go into this intending to be “social justice philanthropists.” And if we’d just been talking in generalities about “social justice” and “systems change,” we probably wouldn’t have made much headway. We had to see the work on the ground. We went on site visits all over the country and talked to nonprofit and community leaders. We made grants to a range of different types of organizations. And we saw that the groups that were more effective – making lasting change for the most people – had a few things in common:

  • They worked in marginalized communities.
  • They put members of those communities front-and-center in leadership and decision-making.
  • They relied on those members to identify the problems and solutions.
  • They tackled structural or systemic problems that were limiting opportunity for hundreds, thousands, even millions of people.

We’re inspired and honored to see firsthand the improvements this type of support has resulted in for individuals, families and communities. Rather than being divisive, this experience has been unifying for us as a family. It has allowed us to push ourselves and grow together in ways that we simply could not have without addressing social and economic inequity. Supporting social justice has both made our foundation stronger and strengthened the foundation of our family.

Ashley Snowdon Blanchard is vice president of the board of Hill-Snowdon Foundation. She is also associate director of philanthropy at TCC Group.

CC image by Steven Snodgrass.

So far, 2015 has been a tough year that has tried our courage and patience in many ways. It’s clear that our work to encourage and protect equity and social justice is more important than ever. This Thanksgiving, we’re sending our thoughts to all those who are working tirelessly for social justice and all the foundations that support them – thank you for all the work you do!

Let us know: What are you grateful for this Thanksgiving?

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has served as the voice of nonprofits and the communities they serve in philanthropy since 1976.  Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Updated November 20, 2015.

This week, the philanthropic and nonprofit community lost a powerful voice with the passing of Rick Cohen. Rick served as executive director of NCRP from 1999 – 2006, during which time he shaped our understanding of social justice philanthropy, and played an important part in refining the practices and policies we fight for to this day.

We asked NCRP’s board members from this period to share their stories and memories of Rick, an extraordinary father, writer and champion for equity.

I first met Rick in Pablo [Eisenberg’s] class when I was a graduate student at Georgetown. Rick had this way where he could articulate the gross injustices within philanthropy in fine detail, while being an incredibly kind-hearted human being. At a ripe age of 29, he brought me on the board of NCRP. There were some board meetings where I said some uncomfortable things, but he always had my back and made me feel safe saying them. 

Christine Ahn
Co-Founder, Korea Policy Institute

It was a blast to work with Rick in developing recommendations on strengthening civic engagement within the nonprofit sector for the incoming Bush II administration. He was very proud of the outcome. These were the early days of the Internet, but we wanted to use new technologies to give state and local nonprofits a voice in developing the recommendations. A wealthy tech expert* offered up his office, which had the latest and greatest new gadgets for virtual meetings. Bizarre as it sounds, his office was literally designed to look like the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek. They put us in a room called “Deck D: Command Center” where we were supposed to link up to nearly 100 nonprofits from around the country to discuss the nonprofit recommendations, but nothing worked as expected. No one could see or hear us. Rick, who wasn’t exactly Scotty, the Star Trek engineer, looked at me, exasperated and frustrated, pushed a bunch of buttons and said, “I’m givin’ her all she’s got, Captain!” Miraculously, all the technology started working!

That was Rick: humorous and witty, but always givin’ all he had.

Gary Bass
Executive Director, Bauman Foundation

I had the privilege of working with Rick as a board member of NCRP. I was on the search committee that hired him. As the interview progressed, I knew we had found our next director. I also served as chair of the board early in Rick’s tenure. Rick assumed NCRP’s leadership with a passion and determination that energized those who worked around him both staff and board. Rick was uncompromising when it came to doing the right thing and was never shy about delivering his honest perspectives on a philanthropic world with too little investment in social justice. Rick loved to argue and debate and at times chided me for working in the more “mainstream” part of our sector. While we hadn’t been in touch in the last year or two, regularly reading his column I could hear his gregarious voice his words full of intensity and passion. You are missed, my friend.

Paul S. Castro, J.D.
President and CEO, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles

We have lost a great advocate for social justice and philanthropic reform. He leaves a huge gap in the field of investigative reporting. Few have had his courage, intellect and integrity that made his reporting so cogent and telling. He will be sorely missed, an irreplaceable part of the nonprofit world.

Pablo Eisenberg
Senior Fellow, Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at the McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University
Co-Founder of NCRP

I first met Rick at a National Network of Grantmakers (NNG) Conference. I had just become the first director of a start-up social justice fund in Maine. Our philosophy was to give large multi-year, general support grants to small grassroots groups. Back then, general, long-term support was not widely practiced, but it was something Rick advocated for strongly. Unlike many folks in this network, I didn’t come from a community organizing background, and apart from writing a lot of grants, I knew nothing about foundation culture. I could say that Rick took me under his wing and showed me the ropes. But that’s not the case. Instead, he accepted me instantly as a peer, an equal, someone who it would be interesting to talk to, and someone who would add value to the field. Awhile later, Rick invited me to be on the NCRP board. It was a terrific few years – connecting our little fund in Maine to the wider universe and strategizing with stellar leaders on how to make philanthropy better. Nothing says social justice more than empowerment, equality and respect, and Rick Cohen was always that.

Deborah Felder
Independent consultant

There are five major influences in my life that awakened and guided me in my personal ‘lucha’ for social justice: in my childhood, my family and the living history of the civil rights movement; in high school, the Jesuits; in college, my Dean of Chicano Affairs at Yale; and in my professional career, Rick Cohen. 

Angel Fernandez-Chavero
Managing Director and Founder, Aspire Praxis, LLC

Rick brought me on to the NCRP board and was a sharp critic of philanthropy, deeply funny and, while occasionally misunderstood, a real mensch. He was very witty and warm and never lost the fire in the belly of a true organizer and muckraker.

Marjorie Fine
Philanthropic consultant

When Rick spoke with me about joining NCRP’s board, I told him that didn’t think I’d have much to offer the foundation insiders who were already on the board. His response was, “Great, then you can ask the hard questions and keep us honest.” That was certainly Rick’s approach to his work overall, which left a profound influence on NCRP and on the entire nonprofit sector.

Judy Hatcher
Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network North America

I’m deeply shocked and sadden by Rick’s death, I was chair of NCRP’s board for many years when Rick was executive director. What I bonded with Rick about was his over-the-top outrage at injustice generally, and the failure of all too many in the not-for-profit sector to do anything about it in particular. It was terrific to be totally in agreement with someone with his intellectual depth and passion.

David R. Jones
President and CEO, Community Service Society of New York

Rick was an amazing thinker, writer and organizer. His willingness to speak truth to power continues to inspire me. I remember his amazing research capabilities and the reports that resulted – sharp, thorough and always just short of getting NCRP in real trouble. Viva Rick!

Mary Lassen
Managing Director, Center for Community Change

Rick Cohen loved his daughter Ellie more than anything in the world. Articulate, courageous, funny and humble – in his work life he was a true leader. Rick was one of the few journalists and practitioners consistently willing to tell and write the truth about philanthropy. He was a great executive director of NCRP, where I had the pleasure of accompanying him as treasurer and then board chair. His passing is a huge loss for his family, friends and the nonprofit community he served. We will miss his rumpled demeanor, self-deprecating jokes and brilliant social criticism.

Teresa Odendahl, Ph.D.
President and CEO, Global Greengrants Fund

I was happy to join the board just as Rick was returning NCRP to its original assignment (prompted by the passage of the Tax Act of 1969) to make sure philanthropy was helping people. He was doing an elegant job of divesting the giving-at-work apparatus and the many directors of NCRP involved in that worthy but narrowly-focused activity and broadening NCRP’s scope, beginning with a serious look at the effectiveness of community foundations. His forward momentum was slowed by intemperate Congressional hearings designed to limit advocacy by foundations, but I think he was instrumental in clearing the way for NCRP to become its present excellent self.

Alan Rabinowitz
Author, philanthropist and philanthropic activist

Rick was a superb thinker, strategist and advocate, but he could not have been more gentle on a personal level.  I joined the NCRP board not long after Rick started working there, and he went out of his way to welcome me in the most gracious of ways. I recall one board meeting that I was not sure that I could make. I had recently given birth, and my child care fell through. Rick eagerly suggested that I bring the infant to the meeting! That’s who he was. I have been a friend of Rick’s ever since, and was delighted that he could attend, and speak at, Aspen Institute events. He always struck the right note: exceptional analysis peppered with self-deprecating humor and charm. Whether the topic is transparency, the implications of a nonprofit business deal or the latest news of Ellie, there’s so much more to share with Rick. His passing leaves me, and the nonprofit sector, bereft.

Cinthia Schuman Ottinger
Deputy Director for Philanthropy Programs, The Aspen Institute

Rick and David Jones invited me on to the NCRP board. What an eye opening experience. I thank them both.

Although we sometimes disagreed, he was usually right, darn it. We never forgot the ultimate goal was to improve the charitable sector. 

Rick changed the sector with his laser-like focus, which made issues that were seemingly innocuous into matters that were exceedingly important to all of us.

His contributions were immense and he will be sorely missed. 

Gary Snyder
Publisher, Nonprofit Imperative

I always thought Rick Cohen played the key role that was central to the work of foundations, nonprofits and community organizations: he was the Conscience that “spoke truth to power,” a steady reminder of our greater purpose and the ethical base from which so much of our work is derived. He held us all to a higher standard and reminded us that so much more could be accomplished with a deeper commitment to do more, and better, for more people. His last question to me at NCRP was, “How can we be this good without being so much better?” And now I have to ask: And who will replace him? Rick was the special talent that will be hard to replace.     

Steve Vetter
President and CEO, Partners of the Americas

Rick Cohen’s death is a loss to all of us. He took on issues that were important. We are grateful for his courage in doing so.

Sr. Helen Vinton
Assistant Director, Southern Mutual Help Association, Inc.

I was on the board when Rick was hired to become executive director of NCRP. It is always difficult to succeed a long-serving founding executive director of a national nonprofit organization, but Rick did just that – he did succeed and did it very well. He brought his immense knowledge of community empowerment, his great intelligence and compassion, and helped NCRP to remain a strong advocate for responsive and responsible philanthropy.  We will all miss his voice and we are all poorer from his absence.

Bill Watanabe
Former Executive Director, Little Tokyo Service Center

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has served as the voice of nonprofits and the communities they serve in philanthropy since 1976.  Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

* Editor’s Note'(2/21/23): When this piece first appeared in 2015, the word ‘guru’ was used as an synonym for the word expert or extremely knowledgeable person. However, in the years since then, it’s casual use has been seen as disrespectful because it diminishes the importance of the title and its Buddhist and Hindu origins. So we replaced it, in this case, with the term ‘expert’.

Rick Cohen was executive director of NCRP from 1999 to 2006. Like many of you, we’re shocked and saddened by his sudden death on Tuesday. Here are some of his many accomplishments from his years leading NCRP.

1. Improving Understanding of Social Justice Philanthropy

In 2003, under Rick’s leadership, NCRP published “Understanding Social Justice Philanthropy,” which explained to the sector the concept of social justice philanthropy, its elements and its theoretical framework. The definition of social justice philanthropy put forward in that publication has been widely adopted by the sector, and is the definition used by Foundation Center to measure social justice giving by U.S. foundations. During Rick’s tenure, NCRP also published reports on funding for advocacy and social change in metropolitan Washington, D.C., and in California, highlighting models of funding organizing and public policy change for the sector. NCRP also published research that quantified the state of social justice philanthropy in 2005.

2. Watchdogging Conservative Philanthropy

Rick continued NCRP’s already established reputation as a vigilant observer of conservative philanthropy, whose influence had increased dramatically during the 1990s. Reports examined the role conservative philanthropic dollars played in making policy on welfare and entitlement reform, corporate and environmental deregulation, tax policy and education. This research remains today some of NCRP’s most popular and widely recognized work. It is also often credited with motivating progressive philanthropists to step up their game, which contributed to the creation of influential groups like the Democracy Alliance and the Center for American Progress. In memory of Rick, we’re making these reports available for free download:

3. Campaigning to Increase Foundation Payout

In 2003, Rick and NCRP advocated for moving more money to charities as Congress considered removing foundation overhead expenses from the payout calculation for private foundations. If Section 105 of HR 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003, had passed, it would have effectively created an all-grants 5 percent payout requirement. The campaign earned NCRP scorn from many foundations, and quiet praise from cash-starved charities. Read NCRP’s A Billion Here, A Billion There: The Empirical Data Add Up.

4. Exercising Power and Influence

Rick was named to The NonProfit Times’ “Power and Influence Top 50” list in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. He was regularly asked to testify on Capitol Hill, especially in the lead up to passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. He also frequently appeared on cable news and was often quoted in mainstream and nonprofit press.

5. Lifting Up Nonprofit Voices

Under Rick’s leadership in 2001, NCRP joined the Center for Effective Government and other allies in commissioning a first-of-its-kind survey of the nonprofit sectors’ needs and recommendations, and presented them in “The Nonprofit Agenda: Recommendations to President George W. Bush to Strengthen the Nonprofit Sector.” Rick also maintained a strong voice for a nonprofit sector actively engaged in civic and political activity, defending our right to engage in advocacy. In 2005, he spoke out strongly against a bill that would have restricted nonprofit advocacy rights, a bill that ultimately did not pass.

6. Demanding Greater Foundation Accountability

During his time at NCRP and as a prolific writer for Nonprofit Quarterly and other publications. Rick was always a voice for foundation accountability and openness. In 2004, NCRP released Standards for Foundation and Corporate Grantmaking, which urged foundations to be more forthcoming with information on grantmaking. The report laid out a vision for good grantmaking that encompassed many of the values that would later be included in Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best.

7. Sending Abramoff to Jail

Corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff went to jail in 2005, and Rick and the NCRP team helped send him there by exposing his abuse of the Capital Athletic Foundation. The foundation used only a pittance of its nearly $4 million in philanthropic grants and expenses for legitimate charities, essentially buying its philanthropic bona fides with tiny $500 grants to legitimate charities. These small grants camouflaged dubious grants to Abramoff-controlled charities and other clearly inappropriate expenditures such as international golfing trips for members of Congress, including Ohio’s Bob Ney. Ney’s committee jurisdiction happened to include oversight of Capitol Hill contracts of interest to Abramoff’s lobbying clients, who also happened to contribute to the Capital Athletic Foundation. See NCRP’s press release on Abramoff’s indictment.

8. Calling for More General Operating Support

Rick’s leadership at NCRP included years-long focus on increasing foundation funding in the form of general operating support. Rick understood that core support was critical for nonprofit sector health and for long-term systemic change. He and his team at NCRP frequently pushed the sector to give more such grants. Check out The Core of the Matter, Not All Grants Are Created Equal and A Call To Action. Since 2000, general operating support by U.S. foundations has increased from 16 percent of grantmaking to 21 percent.

9. Promoting Philanthropy in Rural Communities

Rick’s interest in the issue of rural philanthropic investment, and his tireless pursuit of more foundation dollars for rural communities, informed much of NCRP’s work during his tenure. In 2004, Rick co-authored Beyond City Limits: The Philanthropic Needs of Rural America, which called attention to this pressing issue. He was a major source of knowledge and guidance behind NCRP’s 2007 report Rural Philanthropy: Building Dialogue From Within, which identifies the common reasons that deter foundations from engaging in rural grantmaking and ways to overcome these challenges.

10. Spearheading Effort to Diversify Workplace Giving

During Rick’s leadership, NCRP continued a push to break the monopoly the United Way had on workplace giving by researching and incubating new models. NCRP produced research on the state of workplace giving in 2003, and on innovative models under development in Miami-Dade County and Northwest Ohio. Since then, workplace giving choices have diversified beyond just the traditional United Way, as reported by Nonprofit Quarterly.

Help us celebrate Rick’s accomplishments and contributions to the charitable sector. Share a memorable quote, anecdote or work of Rick’s in comments below.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has served as the voice of nonprofits and the communities they serve in philanthropy since 1976.  Follow @NCRP on Twitter.