I agree completely. As long as the funders involvement is consistent with the mission and goals of the organization, it seems to me that it is actually their duty to do whatever they can to advance the ball. Long term, systemic change most often requires a highly focused effort and a relentless pursuit from a number of sources.
Paul—agreed. The social problems we face will call on every resource we have—including public, individual and corporate private financial support as well as more enlightened policy.
Paul - I completely agree. My foundation has been engaged in advocacy/public policy (and the “L” word - lobbying) for eight years with great success on environmental, nuclear weapons, stem cell research, and campaign finance reform issues. Forgive me as I toot our horn, but I have long wished that more foundations were willing to engage in this kind of work. Our founders (Steve and Michele Kirsch) created us as a supporting foundation of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation for the exact reason that they wanted us to be able to do policy work and lobbying. We had to pay our dues in terms of people learning to trust that our motives were pure (systemic change) and that we would work in the trenches (and the halls of the State Capitol and in Washington, DC) to advance the issues. The payoff has been huge, both in terms of advancing issues but also building collaborations. Sadly, so many foundations that can legally lobby/advocate choose not to because of some of the issues raised on Paul’s post. I hope this will change in the years to come.
A different kind of philanthropic engagement is required to address the roots of what we now understand to be very complex and pervasive problems. Traditional funding and service delivery options are not working. Poverty, homelessness, isolation are all on the rise. In Canada we have just completed a two exploration funded by the McConnell Family Foundation on social innovation and sustainability. A summary of this exploration called ‘Accelerating Our Impact: Philanthropy, Innovation and Social Change’ has a number of considerations for funders thinking of engaging in system level change including:
1) Changing funding cycles to reflect the long term nature of system change - 10 years is realistic
2) Convening multi sectoral tables to address challenges such as social financing and technology that cut across the citizen sector
3) Investing in learning networks and collaborations that have the promise of creating new and deeper knowledge even though they can promise little in the way of traditional deliverables.
4) Developing a ‘culture of accompaniment’ and becoming co learners with grantees
Yes. A community of philanthropists can effect markets. But as Jane Wales so astutely pointed out, “markets provide a rational distribution of wealth but policy provides an equitable distribution of wealth.”
Paul - The nature of the problem and its developmental stage should drive foundation decisions whether to adopt an “honest broker’ vs. “advocacy” role. Nascent issues are often best addressed by providing fact-based information to sort out contradictory data or opposing arguments. For example, in early discussions on climate change, the debate focused on degree to which global warming was occurring and, if so, whether it was caused by human activity. At that point, there was a need for objective, credible information (beyond the fray of partisan politics) to help the media, policy makers and the general public answer these questions.
Now that the evidence is in, the focus can be on directly influencing federal and state policy on climate change. At this point, philanthropic activity should focus on mobilizing a broad base of support around specific solutions.
So, in my view, the question is not whether foundations SHOULD engage in advocacy; it’s WHEN is it the best approach?
COMMENTS
BY Rourke OBrien
ON August 23, 2007 02:38 PM
Paul,
I agree completely. As long as the funders involvement is consistent with the mission and goals of the organization, it seems to me that it is actually their duty to do whatever they can to advance the ball. Long term, systemic change most often requires a highly focused effort and a relentless pursuit from a number of sources.
BY Chuck Harris
ON August 23, 2007 04:09 PM
Paul—agreed. The social problems we face will call on every resource we have—including public, individual and corporate private financial support as well as more enlightened policy.
BY Susan Frank
ON August 23, 2007 05:31 PM
Paul - I completely agree. My foundation has been engaged in advocacy/public policy (and the “L” word - lobbying) for eight years with great success on environmental, nuclear weapons, stem cell research, and campaign finance reform issues. Forgive me as I toot our horn, but I have long wished that more foundations were willing to engage in this kind of work. Our founders (Steve and Michele Kirsch) created us as a supporting foundation of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation for the exact reason that they wanted us to be able to do policy work and lobbying. We had to pay our dues in terms of people learning to trust that our motives were pure (systemic change) and that we would work in the trenches (and the halls of the State Capitol and in Washington, DC) to advance the issues. The payoff has been huge, both in terms of advancing issues but also building collaborations. Sadly, so many foundations that can legally lobby/advocate choose not to because of some of the issues raised on Paul’s post. I hope this will change in the years to come.
BY Vickie Cammack
ON August 23, 2007 07:01 PM
A different kind of philanthropic engagement is required to address the roots of what we now understand to be very complex and pervasive problems. Traditional funding and service delivery options are not working. Poverty, homelessness, isolation are all on the rise. In Canada we have just completed a two exploration funded by the McConnell Family Foundation on social innovation and sustainability. A summary of this exploration called ‘Accelerating Our Impact: Philanthropy, Innovation and Social Change’ has a number of considerations for funders thinking of engaging in system level change including:
1) Changing funding cycles to reflect the long term nature of system change - 10 years is realistic
2) Convening multi sectoral tables to address challenges such as social financing and technology that cut across the citizen sector
3) Investing in learning networks and collaborations that have the promise of creating new and deeper knowledge even though they can promise little in the way of traditional deliverables.
4) Developing a ‘culture of accompaniment’ and becoming co learners with grantees
the full document can be accessed at http://www.mcconnellfoundation.ca/utilisateur/documents/EN/Initiatives/Sustaining Social Innovation/Accelerating_our_Impact.pdf
BY Clara Jong
ON August 24, 2007 11:19 AM
Yes. A community of philanthropists can effect markets. But as Jane Wales so astutely pointed out, “markets provide a rational distribution of wealth but policy provides an equitable distribution of wealth.”
BY Page Snow
ON August 25, 2007 11:14 AM
Paul - The nature of the problem and its developmental stage should drive foundation decisions whether to adopt an “honest broker’ vs. “advocacy” role. Nascent issues are often best addressed by providing fact-based information to sort out contradictory data or opposing arguments. For example, in early discussions on climate change, the debate focused on degree to which global warming was occurring and, if so, whether it was caused by human activity. At that point, there was a need for objective, credible information (beyond the fray of partisan politics) to help the media, policy makers and the general public answer these questions.
Now that the evidence is in, the focus can be on directly influencing federal and state policy on climate change. At this point, philanthropic activity should focus on mobilizing a broad base of support around specific solutions.
So, in my view, the question is not whether foundations SHOULD engage in advocacy; it’s WHEN is it the best approach?
BY Jim Knight
ON December 4, 2007 10:13 PM
and when they engage in advocacy, pitting one group of taxpayers against another, isn’t this the point where they should lose their tax exemption?