To the Editor:
Recent coverage of the Open Society Foundations’ plan to reduce its staff by at least 40 percent fails to tell the whole story. OSF began as a predominantly operating foundation but is now largely a grant-making organization. Discussion of the decision to lay off staff misses crucial context: It takes far fewer people to give grants to others than for an organization to operate programs itself.
When George Soros established the first of his national foundations in Hungary in 1984, it was nearly impossible to give grants to independent nongovernmental organizations. They just didn’t exist in communist countries. To support education for the Roma minority, provide scholarships for Hungarians to study abroad, or translate books on public affairs into Hungarian, the foundation had to do the work itself, which required extensive staff time. That was also true in the more-than-20 other East European and former Soviet Union countries in which Soros’s network of foundations developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
By the time I became president of Open Society’s philanthropy network in 1993, some nongovernmental organizations had started to operate in former communist countries, and we gave out a lot of grants. Until 2012, when I retired, OSF continued to expand into other countries and increase its grant giving. Yet we still operated programs ourselves in these places.
Myanmar, for instance, where we started working shortly after I became president, was as repressive, if not more so, than the communist countries where OSF began. Because Myanmar’s military rulers had ruined its education system, we launched a scholarship program for students to study in countries such as Thailand, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. To handle it, a dedicated staff worked directly with the universities, choosing the recipients of the scholarships, making travel arrangements, and providing medical insurance.
In 1995, we began operating in Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, where the dictatorship of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier had been overthrown and a subsequent military dictatorship was ousted. There, we started the Haiti foundation Fokal, which established a network of about 40 libraries around the country that also functioned as community centers. Again, these were operating programs that required a larger staff.
During my time as president, OSF was also active in the countries involved in the Yugoslav wars, providing humanitarian assistance and scholarships for students who couldn’t attend school and leading the effort to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes. Much of this could be addressed only through operating programs, not grant making.
OSF continued to operate some programs mostly by itself when we began working in the United States in 1993, such as in the areas of drug policy and care for the dying. In 1996, we established an urban debate league project. At the time, many secondary schools in suburbs and small towns had debate programs while inner-city schools did not. OSF organized urban debate leagues around the country that began partially as operating programs. Over time, we shifted to grant making as city school systems took over these efforts and funded them out of their own budgets — no longer relying on OSF for financial support. Today, an independent organization in which we have no role, the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, manages these programs.
OSF played a similar role with the Open Society Justice Initiative, or OSJI, which promoted the adoption of freedom-of-information laws and regulations in many countries. Now citizen groups in those countries take advantage of and help maintain such laws, which cover environmental protection, budget transparency, and efforts against corruption in more than 135 countries.
OSJI is the Open Society Foundations’ last major operating program. It continues to litigate on justice and human-rights issues although at a decreased size and scope. A few other smaller-scale efforts involving fellowships and advocacy also still function as operating programs.
Today, the Open Society Foundations have evolved into what are primarily grant-making entities, requiring less staff. In part, this reflects its reduced focus in former communist countries and the development of many nongovernmental organizations in those areas. OSFs’ focus on public health and education — which accounted for many of its operating programs — has also declined. Newer priorities, such as addressing climate change and the rise of authoritarianism, do not readily lend themselves to operating programs. The current leadership of OSF has also indicated that it is comfortable with large-scale multiyear grants that are less staff intensive.
Coverage of OSFs’ planned layoffs fails to acknowledge both the important historical context in which the organization arose and how it has evolved as the world has changed. By nature, a smaller staff is needed to manage grant giving than to oversee operating programs. OSF started as predominantly an operating foundation because of the historical circumstances surrounding its launch. I believe it played a valuable role in addressing the great issues it confronted in that period.
The test for OSF now that it is primarily a grant-making foundation will be whether it is at least as successful at tackling the comparably grave issues it confronts today.
Aryeh Neier
President Emeritus
Open Society Foundations
Editor’s note: The Chronicle receives financial support from Open Society.