We’re excited to announce that Timi Gerson, strategic advocacy and communications consultant at Gerson Strategies, will be NCRP’s new Vice President and Chief Content Officer beginning May 21.

Timi will oversee NCRP’s research and assessment efforts as well as public policy campaigns, which for more than 40 years has been used to push foundations to be more accountable, transparent and responsive. Recently, NCRP has released:

  • As the South Grows, a series of reports with Grantmakers for Southern Progress exploring the challenges and opportunities for progressive change work in the South.
  • Power Moves, a guide for foundations to self-assess how well they are building, sharing and wielding power and identify ways to transform programs and operations for lasting, equitable impact.

“I am very excited that Timi is joining NCRP to lead our content team. Her commitment to supporting grassroots social justice work is impressive, and her communications and advocacy experience will be a great benefit to NCRP’s work promoting philanthropy that is responsive to those with the least wealth and opportunity.” 

– Aaron Dorfman, President and CEO, NCRP

Timi will use the goals and strategies laid in out in NCRP’s 10-year strategic framework, released in late 2016, to inform future content.

Under the strategic framework, NCRP provides social justice movements and their current and potential funders with useful resources that will help increase impact and win important campaigns. We are also expanding programming to encourage wealthy donors to give in ways that promote equity and justice.

“NCRP’s vision and values deeply align with my own. We share a belief in the power of collective action for the public good, a commitment to accountability, transparency and inclusivity, and a focus on results, not rhetoric. I am thrilled to be joining their work to transform the philanthropy sector at a time when it is more urgent and relevant than ever.”

– Timi Gerson

ABOUT TIMI GERSON

Photo of Timi Gerson

Timi Gerson

Timi will join NCRP later this month after finishing her work at Gerson Strategies. Gerson was previously the director of advocacy at American Jewish World Service, a vice president of Fenton Communications, and field director and senior organizer at Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

She serves on the board of Jubilee USA Network, is a member of the Washington, D.C., chapter of Showing Up for Racial Justice and is a volunteer organizing coach for Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice.

Timi holds a Bachelor of Arts in Women’s Studies from Earlham College.

We’re all looking forward to having Timi on board. Help us share the news on Twitter and Facebook.

“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” – Aboriginal activists group / Lilla Watson, Queensland, 1970s 

Funders that care about health equity have come a long way in the last 20 years. They increasingly emphasize social determinants of health, think intentionally about how to work with communities, and want to make sure those relationships are more authentic and driven by community priorities.

The next frontier for health philanthropy is to squarely name and redress power imbalances and systems of oppression – racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and ableism – at the root of health inequities.

A recent blog post in Health Affairs posed the question: “Power: The Most Fundamental Cause of Health Inequity?” The authors state:

Addressing the social determinants of health – at least in the manner that they have been conceptualized and measured to date – alone will not support our nation’s efforts to reach our health potential … It is time to address power … Advancing equity, therefore, requires attention to power (as a determinant) and empowerment, or building power (as a process). 

We’ve been more explicitly naming the centrality of power in our work to advance health equity at Human Impact Partners (HIP):

  • In our research and advocacy we work directly with community organizers, who have a keen analysis of power and are committed to building power in communities.
  • In our capacity- and field-building, we’re developing a stronger social justice identity and practice within public health, and building bridges to connect the public health sector to community organizing.
  • In diverse settings we unapologetically advance our perspective, including in government and other institutions that have been complicit in creating inequities.

So what would it mean for health funders to focus on power? We’ve learned much from the incredibly inspiring approach of The California Endowment. As we’ve experimented with this question, we offer a few ideas for funders to consider. While some ideas are primarily relevant to health funders, most are applicable to any grantmaker that is working toward equitable, thriving communities.

1. Develop a theory of change that includes how power and oppression constrain or support policy, systems and environmental change.

To eliminate health inequities at the root, funders should develop an analysis and understanding of how power is at play – currently and historically – in the issues they care about. Consider housing: Access to affordable, safe housing is unquestionably a determinant of health. But why is housing so unaffordable and of such poor quality in certain neighborhoods?

I think about our social and political history, and how redlining and housing covenants kept people of color in racially and economically segregated communities. This is just one example of how public policy was actively manipulated by those in power to physically and emotionally marginalize people of color and poor people. This pattern repeats itself across issues health funders care about, from education to employment to the environment.

Developing an analysis of power is essential to break these cycles and be realistic about what it takes to achieve social determinants of health policy change – where the status quo is often entrenched and resistant to change. Having this analysis would help funders widen the type and scope of interventions and strategies they consider funding and potentially be more successful at advancing health equity.

2. Learn from, ally with and support those who believe in power-building to make headway on the issues you care about (read: work with community organizers).

Mindset shift is essential. Health funders need to see themselves as part of a larger social justice fabric where their health identity aligns explicitly with social movements. This means learning from and supporting foundations and organizations that focus on building power and see themselves as part of the same ecosystem. Health funders could directly support power-building by funding grassroots movements and organizations, to advance solutions to the problems communities identify.

Community organizers may not necessarily see health as a top challenge and may not lead with it. Health funders would have to grow comfortable funding organizations that never talk about health. They would have to trust that grassroots organizing for policy, systems and environmental change around the social determinants has downstream benefits for health and equity.

3. Uphold a narrative within health philanthropy that’s about building power to advance health equity, which acknowledges entrenched systems of oppression.

Developing an analysis is not enough. Narrative change within health is daunting but needed. Narratives are values-based stories about how and why the world works as it does, which frame our responses to the problems we see.

Funders must actively hold each other accountable to change entrenched narratives that impede progress on health equity. They must tell the story of how power imbalances and oppression created unfair and unjust systems that led to poor health and persistent health inequities.

Importantly, the narrative cannot be based just on numbers and facts – we also want to activate hearts and minds by centering people who have been harmed by racism and other forms of oppression. This can happen through listening, storytelling, examining our history and owning our piece of it.  

4. Create a framework for measuring outcomes and progress. Fund the development of appropriate metrics for organizing and advocacy that advances health equity.

I’m incredibly proud of our progress, but I can’t necessarily tell you how we’ve changed health outcomes yet. I’d love to have health funders’ energy and support in defining success, which includes process metrics about developing transformative relationships, changing the conversation, developing leaders and innovating around strategy.

Most recently we’ve seen the potential of this approach in Massachusetts, where a new criminal justice law expands the use of alternatives to incarceration for parents of dependent children. Formerly incarcerated women from Families for Justice as Healing wrote and advocated for the “primary caretakers” provisions, and our team at HIP wrote a report on the health impacts of the policy and educated public health stakeholders, who rallied behind it.

This successful collaboration, with research funded by The Kresge Foundation, came about because HIP explicitly names the centrality of power in advancing health equity.

The shift to a social determinants frame in health philanthropy was a huge accomplishment. Given the wider reckoning in our society, we can’t wait another 20 years to explicitly name power and oppression’s role in creating health inequities. Let’s get clear on these root causes and shift the conversation, and our efforts, to challenge them. Only then can we be confident that we’re truly creating a society in which everyone can thrive. 

Lili Farhang is co-director of Human Impact Partners, which brings the power of public health to campaigns and movements for a just society. Follow @HumanImpact_HIP on Twitter.

Today we join FCCP’s Funders Census Initiative, United Philanthropy Forum and other philanthropy serving organizations around the country in asking our members and supporters to commit to a fair and accurate census.

“Census Day,” April 1, 2020, is now less than two years away and the time to act is now!

More than $600 billion annually in federal assistance to states, localities and families is distributed based on census data. Yet historically, the census has missed disproportionate numbers of people of color, young children and the rural and urban poor, leading to inequality in political power and in access to public funding and private investment for these communities. Going into 2020, additional communities, including immigrants and refugees, unmarried women and the LGBTQ community are at risk of being missed.

We know the census matters to the issues and communities you care about. For example:

Kids

Did you know that children under age five are the most likely of all age groups to be undercounted? In 2010, the undercount rate for young children was 4.6 percent, and more than 2.2 million in this age group were not included in the census results.

Communities of color

Did you know that Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives have been undercounted for decades, disadvantaging their families, communities and neighborhoods?

Healthy communities

Of that $600 billion, census data guide the distribution of billions for programs focused on ensuring healthy communities: $312 billion in Medicaid dollars, $69 billion to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), $64 billion in Medicare Part B dollars, $11 billion to the National School Lunch Program and $11 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (S-CHIP), among others.

Education

Of that $600 billion, census data guide the distribution of billions for educational programs – $14 billion to Title I grants to local education agencies, $11 billion to the National School Lunch Program and $11 billion to special education grants (IDEA), among others.

Housing

Of that $600 billion, census data guide the distribution of billions for housing programs – $1 billion to Section 8 housing choice vouchers and $9 billion to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Programs, among others. 

For more information on these and other federal programs, please see the Counting for Dollars analysis.

For more information on hard-to-count populations, including state-level data, please visit the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights Census.

The 2020 Census is facing unprecedented challenges, and although philanthropy cannot and should not supplant the government’s responsibility to ensure a fair and accurate census, funder engagement in support of the census is more important than ever.

RELATED READING:

Philanthropy and the 2020 Census: A once-in-a-decade chance to get it right
by Vanita Gupta

So what can you do? Here are the top THREE things you can do TODAY:

1. Review the Funder Menu of Options created in partnership by United Philanthropy Forum and the Funders Census Initiative (FCI 2020) to help funders identify what they can to do. 

2. Join the Funders Census Initiative, United Philanthropy Forum and our co-sponsoring partners on April 9 for a webinar on “Participate. Convene. Invest.: A Call to Action for the 2020 Census” Register Here.

3. Join the Funders Census Initiative Working Group. As a working group member, you’ll have access to the core listserv for funders to connect on their work at the national, state and local levels. Later this year, we’ll also be launching a password protected portal for working group members to share additional resources. There is no cost, and you don’t need to be an FCCP member to join.

Check out the FCI and Forum websites for a library of resources and information on the census.

Thank you for your commitment to making sure that Everyone Counts!

Image by Nick Youngson. Used under Creative Commons license.

Editor’s note: This post is part of an ongoing series of posts featuring NCRP nonprofit members.

Seeing is believing­ – a nice proverb, but also an often unsaid maxim for philanthropic giving. After all, if a would-be funder can’t see a problem or isn’t aware of its impact, how can she be expected to buy into potential solutions?

So what’s a willing advocate to do when a community faces systemic adversity that could benefit from philanthropic investment, but is too new and too dispersed to speak at a volume funders can hear?

This is the predicament Asian Pacific Community in Action (APCA) finds itself in. Founded in 2002, APCA seeks to foster greater health and empowerment for the two fastest growing populations in Arizona: Asian-Americans and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (AANHPI). It does so through a combination of services, advocacy and education.

APCA has enrolled community members in health insurance plans and educated them about preventative care. It has championed language access in the health insurance marketplace, resulting in some translations of various insurance notices. APCA staff and volunteers occupy key leadership positions in the governing councils of county health clinics and hospitals, city commissions and chambers of commerce.

Yet there is still a long way to go.

Nearly every one in 20 persons in Arizona is a member of an AANHPI community. But, because most of them arrived only in the 1990s or 2000s and settled into areas sequestered from the rest of the population, they remain invisible to the public eye.

There is no Chinatown or Little Korea to help center these disparate locations. Other standard community infrastructure, like legal and housing services, are not yet developed. The Arizona Department of Health doesn’t even collect Asian-American data, instead cramming it into an ill-defined “other” category.

The needs of a Chinese-American whose family has been here for four generations are plainly different than those of a recently arrived Myanmar refugee, but if the health department doesn’t disentangle the responses of the former from the latter, how are health care providers to know who needs what?

Problems like this pushed APCA to progress from a strictly outreach and health access portfolio to a broader emphasis on community organizing. APCA now registers people to vote and educates community members on how issues affect them, how a bill becomes law and how to connect with lawmakers to ensure they are meeting the AANHPI community’s needs.

In 2016, APCA launched the first Asian-American Pacific Islander Advocacy Day. At the state capitol in Phoenix, about 20 community members were directly connected with their elected officials. The following year, the organization helped introduce a data disaggregation bill that would have collected and separated out Asian-American data. It wasn’t passed, but APCA did get a resolution read on the Senate floor, introducing the issue to many legislators for the first time.

APCA has committed to building out space for a coalition of community health workers, faith leaders and health professionals to work together around shared issues in the AANHPI community.

Take oral health, for instance. APCA has designed a community organizing and advocacy training program that brings in oral health providers serving communities of color to talk about social determinants in health and what’s happening in the state legislature around the issue.

APCA is not an organization that wants to exist in perpetuity. As more and more members of the AANHPI communities see the value in civic engagement and seize the collective power available to them, APCA would victoriously grow obsolete.

In the meantime, APCA could use some help. General operating support would jumpstart its efforts to connect with the growing number of AANHPI individuals in the state and help as it recruits leaders from each set of the 60-plus different languages and cultures therein to guide its approach until the communities united are ready to stand on their own.

Beyond funding general operation, there are specific programmatic areas awaiting support too. APCA would like to resurrect a dormant interpreter service to help its constituents navigate a language and culture in which they’re not yet proficient. Alternatively, the organization has collected a trove of data and stories from the Arizonan AANHPI communities; it could use additional funding to hire a staffer to sift through all of this information.

The Asian-American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities in Arizona are no longer hidden. Their individual experiences may vary, but their expertise in their communities does not. Funding in the long-run should capitalize on this insider knowledge and let it guide future research and community action. In the end, seeing isn’t just believing; it’s doing.

Troy Price is NCRP’s membership and fundraising intern. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Image by Rob Young. Used under Creative Commons license.

Editor’s note: This post is part of an ongoing series of posts featuring NCRP nonprofit members.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy logo.Glenda Jimmo, a blind woman confined to a wheelchair after diabetes took her right leg, required multiple weekly home health services for her condition.

A woman living with ALS who lost the user of her arms and hands required extensive care services in her home.

A World War II veteran stricken with Parkinson’s disease fell in his home and needed access to a skilled nursing facility for his recovery.

All three were denied Medicare coverage, the national health insurance program for which Social Security recipients who are over 65 or permanently disabled are eligible, because their conditions were “not improving” and thus not worthy of coverage.

Another woman was left helpless and alone after Medicare deemed her multiple sclerosis “not improving.” Bedridden and shut off from essential in-home nursing care, she went four days without food or water.

This “improvement standard” pervaded all of Medicare, informing the decisions of health care providers, contractors and even administrative law judges.

For decades, it was used to save money and deny coverage to the Americans who most direly needed care. But there was no regulation on the books that supported this practice. In fact, Medicare rules stipulate “the restoration potential of a patient is not the deciding factor in determining whether skilled services are needed.”

Put another way: The improvement standard was illegal. Medicare providers had conjured up a standard out of thin air, and to devastating effect.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA), a Connecticut-based organization that fights on behalf of older and disabled Americans to improve their access to and the quality of their health care, refused to abide this misguided practice.

Since its founding in 1986, CMA has taught Medicare administrators that the elderly and disabled need not show improvement to retain coverage if their current treatment is still the best way to care for them, e.g. if other options would lead to worse health outcomes.

This helped individual cases, but did little to stem the tide of wrongful coverage denials. Having exhausted all other advocacy options, CMA did what it had to do and took the federal government to court. They won.

This was literally a life-saving victory for people like Glenda Jimmo. And it’s not the first time CMA has used the courts to protect some of the most vulnerable among us.

The organization represents thousands of Americans in appeals of Medicare denials, and advocates on their behalf in administrative, executive and legal settings. Legal services have proven to be an effective arrow in the organization’s quiver.

But it’s only one arrow among many. Connecticut has contracted CMA to provide legal training and support for its health insurance and assistance program. CMA produces a host of educational materials and resources related to Medicare, and everyday Americans nationwide rely on CMA for expert Medicare information and insight.

In the National Medicare Advocates Alliance, CMA is joined by a network of attorneys, Medicare-related advocacy organizations and state health insurance providers for bimonthly conference calls on specific topics in Medicare, elders’ rights and elders’ health care.

The National Medicare Advocates Alliance began as a foundation-funded project more than a decade ago, but its national impact was so great that it felt compelled to continue the endeavor even after the original grants expired.

But the cost of managing CMA hasn’t gone away. Nor has the cost of fielding the hundreds of calls CMA receives each year from outside Connecticut when older or disabled Americans need expertise and counsel. Philanthropy has heretofore shown little interest in funding these services, and funders have been even more reticent to fund legal work, according to CMA.

The threats to Medicare access and quality continue to grow. CMA won an inspiring victory on the improvement standard, but that just pushed Medicare to enforce existing law correctly. Bigger, systemic perils like privatization of the program or a winding down of Medicare altogether endanger far more of our seniors and disabled.

Bigger, systemic problems require bigger, systemic solutions. Philanthropy needs to invest in long-term capacity so those working on this issue can build up the staffing necessary to hold the line on Medicare access and quality.

When they devise successful programs like the National Medicare Advocates Alliance, funders shouldn’t cut support after a year or two and ask for something new. Place the emphasis instead on enriching and broadening what has already proven to work.

Advocacy is a matter of using the best resources to tell the best stories in the best place possible. The Center for Medicare Advocacy has the stories and has the places. Imagine what they could do if they had the resources too.

Troy Price is NCRP’s membership and fundraising intern. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.