The Philanthropy Information Retrieval Project (PIRP) reports on new ideas and other developments that may affect the field of philanthropy in the years to come. In contrast to other publications that cover today’s breaking news, PIRP generally highlights emerging issues that may be visible only on the horizon.  In line with its role as an early alert system for the field of philanthropy, PIRP intentionally includes items that are critical of current practice and policy as well as reports that are supportive.  PIRP was started in 1996 by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and was transferred to the Aspen Institute in 2003, where it is currently funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Northwest Area Foundation, and The Philanthropic Collaborative.  Burness Communications, Bethesda, Md., prepares the copy.  As the publication’s editor, I welcome your comments and suggestions. – Alan J. Abramson, Director, Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy Program, The Aspen Institute


NCRP IDENTIFIES PRACTICES MAINSTREAM FOUNDATIONS COULD ADOPT TO MATCH PUBLIC POLICY SUCCESSES OF THEIR SMALLER, CONSERVATIVE COUNTERPARTS

Rick Cohen, of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, said at a March 11 forum in Washington that mainstream foundations should examine and potentially emulate some of the grantmaking practices that have made conservative foundations so successful in helping shape public policy. The Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal sponsored the forum to discuss and debate the findings from NCRP’s latest study of politically conservative foundations, Axis of Ideology: Conservative Foundations and Public Policy. There was surprisingly little disagreement with NCRP’s findings at the forum, with both the Philanthropy Roundtable’s Adam Meyerson and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation’s Michael Grebe complimenting the report. Terence Scanlon of the Capital Research Center found the report “flattering” but a “little deceptive,” since the amount of money conservative foundations spend on public policy pales in comparison to the amount spent by larger foundations.  Only three of the 79 conservative foundations that NCRP identified are among the 100 largest foundations, he said.

The conservative foundations identified by NCRP employ grantmaking strategies that are different from their mainstream counterparts.  Adam Meyerson of the Philanthropy Roundtable said at the Hudson forum that many of the strategies employed by the conservative foundations were characteristic of highly effective grantmaking. These include:  

OFFERING FLEXIBLE FUNDS, or funds for general operating support that allow nonprofits to respond in a timely manner to current events. Support for operations makes it easier to get around the anti-lobbying regulations that apply to foundations than support for specific programs, the report suggested. In addition, conservative funders don’t generally require “arduous evaluations” of how the funds were used, perhaps in part because their results are easily measured by news coverage and legislative influence, but even more because they “trust their grant recipients in a major way,” Cohen said at the Hudson forum.

OFFERING LONG-TERM FUNDS, or funds for new or existing nonprofits that are committed over a long period of time, as long as decades. Cohen said at the Hudson forum that he’s not inferring that this adds up to “hugely greater effectiveness,” but that the commitment shown by these funders “stunned” him. They often continued to fund organizations well after the initial projects were completed, or years after the organizations became largely self-sufficient.

OFFERING SUPPORT FOR NONPROFITS ENGAGED IN ALL FACETS OF PUBLIC POLICY, from working with lawmakers to marketing ideas to challenging existing regulations in courts, and at all levels, from federal to state to local. Often, mainstream foundations focus on social change, but social change without a policy dimension, NCRP’s Cohen said at the Hudson forum. These foundations don’t generally see advocating policy change as their priority, or fear government retribution for doing so. But the Roundtable’s Meyerson said effective philanthropists are “not afraid of controversy” or of taking unpopular positions, and NCRP finds that conservative foundations generally abide by this notion.

WORKING IN ALIGNMENT, though not generally through deliberate coordination or collaboration, toward broader goals of the political right. Conservative foundations don’t generally collaborate with their foundation colleagues, but there is a great deal of overlap between the leadership of conservative foundations and the leadership of their grantees. Michael Grebe of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation said at the Hudson forum that he is actually dismayed by the lack of collaboration among conservative funders. He said Bradley hopes to enhance collaboration in the coming years.


Note to Readers

We would appreciate your offering us information that we can include in a future edition. If you have an item you believe would be helpful to your colleagues, please e-mail it to Doug Rule. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

If you would like to subscribe to this newsletter, please click here and write “subscribe” in the subject line of the email.
If you would like to unsubscribe from this newsletter, please click here and write “unsubscribe” in the subject line of the email.