Now that we’re almost at the Trump administration’s 100-day mark, it’s time to examine whether philanthropy is doing what it takes to fight threats to the domestic and international issues nonprofits care deeply about.
So far, we have seen signs of concern from grant makers but not enough money flowing to much-needed activities.
Foundations seem inclined to provide significant sums for research and analysis of major issues and problems but not nearly as much for community organizing and other forms of activism. Research is useful, but unless it is coupled with money to mobilize citizens to act, it will be impossible to defeat President Trump’s approach to domestic and foreign policy
Grant makers also have shown little interest in financing or arranging coalitions of organizations that work in health, education, the environment, and other causes threatened by the Trump White House.
What’s encouraging is that foundations seem to be showing substantial interest in strengthening media institutions, many of which have been under attack by President Trump and his aides. The Omidyar Network’s commitment this month of $100 million to rebuild trust in institutions that provide information presages a welcome escalation of support from foundations and wealthy donors.
Building a resistance movement for change requires a great deal of money for community organizing, policy advocacy, and civil activism.
But if foundations are going to help challenge, blunt, or reverse Mr. Trump’s policies, they must change the way they do business. Their elitist approach to grant making is no longer suitable to the demands of a serious anti-Trump resistance movement.
Unlike the Democrats who lost the election because they ignored what working-class workers were saying, foundations will need to listen to voices in local communities throughout the country. They can no longer afford to determine their priorities without consulting or listening to people who are working day in and day out in neighborhoods and on the streets.
The “I know best” approach foundation leaders so often take isn’t relevant or effective anymore. Nearly 90 percent of foundations no longer accept unsolicited proposals, a sign that too many grant makers are ignoring what most nonprofits and their constituents believe is most important to do. It’s time to abandon this inappropriate and harmful system of giving away money.
Grants to Local Groups
It is in the towns and neighborhoods dotting the United States where resistance to Trump policies have so far been the most successful. Protests, visits to congressional town halls, and political pressure have provided notable results. But local nonprofits lack the money they need to build stable groups, provide forceful leadership, and forge successful coalitions. This is where foundation grant making could be exceedingly effective.
Building a resistance movement for change requires a great deal of money for community organizing, policy advocacy, and civil activism. This will come about only if foundations make a drastic shift in their grant-making priorities and approaches.
Historically, America’s largest foundations, especially those that give money nationwide, have resisted awarding money directly to local groups or communities, even to state- or regional-based entities. The reasons for this approach are at best illogical and unconvincing: It’s not uncommon to hear excuses like “It’s hard to hold local groups accountable”; “we’re only interested in national policies”; or” we don’t have sufficient staff to manage local giving.”
A top official of the Ford Foundation once actually told me that if it were to support local efforts, it would have to add seven or eight staff members, a measure it could not afford. At the time, Ford had assets of more than $12 billion.
For over 30 years the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation was the only major foundation that operated a small grants program for local nonprofits, an effort that was a resounding success.
Even to foundations with short memories, Hurricane Katrina should serve as a vivid reminder of what the absence of funding can do to neglected cities and towns. The refusal of large foundations to provide support to local community organizations left the infrastructure of the three southern states hit hardest by the hurricane devastated and incapable of rebuilding the region. To this day, foundations still appear to ignore Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
Money for Coalitions
It’s also useful to look back at the foundation-financed coalition that drove passage of the Affordable Care Act. It was an infusion of some $30 million from Atlantic Philanthropies and other large foundations that sustained the successful work of a broad coalition of nonprofits that were instrumental in pushing Congress to approve the health-care law.
As health and social-welfare programs find their budgets under threat today, they aren’t building large, powerful coalitions to protest federal spending cuts. Nor are environmental programs or public schools working collaboratively to combat damaging spending plans.
Why do foundations unhesitatingly give large endowment grants to universities and colleges, hospitals, and museums but not to advocacy groups?
While poor leadership at nonprofits is partially to blame, the primary fault lies with foundations, which have been unwilling to provide the resources for such efforts. Foundations can’t afford to wait much longer if they want to preserve crucial programs that are at risk of losing federal aid.
And at a time when ethics problems and other signs of government wrongdoing are on the rise, America’s watchdog groups are too few and grossly underfunded to provide the level of accountability we need. Foundations could do much to pour more money into building a strong set of watchdogs that work in a broad range of areas.
Endowments for Advocacy
Activist groups — both local and national — have always faced a difficult time raising money. But given today’s challenges, that is an even more urgent problem. Foundations could provide sizable endowments to a select number of national and local advocacy groups with the idea that doing so would allow leaders and workers to focus on what they do best — influence policy, not raise money. Why do foundations unhesitatingly give large endowment grants to universities and colleges, hospitals, and museums but not to advocacy groups?
Fads often determine philanthropic history. Today’s fad seems to be mission-related investments, such as the $1 billion the Ford Foundation last month pledged over the next decade to investments that curb inequality. There is nothing wrong with this emphasis on social investments, but it is not what is most needed from philanthropy in these critical times.
Of far greater importance is money for advocacy and organizing efforts to stop the Trump administration’s destructive policies. Ford and other grant makers, how about providing $1 billion to grass roots and other advocacy groups at both the local and national levels?
Now that would be cutting edge and noteworthy. More important, it might make a real difference.
Pablo Eisenberg, a regular Chronicle contributor, is a senior fellow at the Center for Public & Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. His email address is pseisenberg@verizon.net.