REAL RESULTS Why Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice Philanthropy

A Philanthropy at Its Best® Report

REAL RESULTSWhy Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice Philanthropy

By Niki Jagpal and Kevin Laskowski

Cover photos – Top left: Students at Gateway Math and Science Elementary School work on a census lesson during the St. Louis launch of the Census in Schools program. Courtesy of U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office. Middle left: As many as 5,000 people are estimated

to have participated in Seattle's March and Rally for Health Care Reform on May 30, 2009. Photo Credit: Neil Parekh/SEIU Healthcare 775NW.Bottom Right: "Don’t Hesitate, Communicate,” Shoulder To Shoulder City-Wide Youth Banner Project, 2000. In partnership with

the City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission, SPARC and UCLA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report would not have been possible without the work of each of the authors of our HighImpact Strategies for Philanthropy series of reports. The authors are grateful to Amy Farley, SarahHansen, Terri Langston, Holly Sidford and Kevin Welner for producing such compelling reportson the arts and culture, education, the environment and health care for NCRP and the field ofphilanthropy. Each person on NCRP’s staff played a role in helping to create what would becomeReal Results. The authors would like to extend a special thanks to Meredith Brodbeck, SeanDobson, Aaron Dorfman and Lisa Ranghelli for their invaluable help with reviewing the text, andproviding us with guidance and feedback throughout the process.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Niki Jagpal has been NCRP’s Research and Policy Director since 2007. She came to NCRP fromthe research department at Media Matters for America, a web-based nonprofit progressive researchand information center. Previously, Niki worked at Ipas, an international organization that works toenhance women’s reproductive rights and health. Niki holds a bachelor’s degree in history and cul-tural anthropology from Duke University and a master of public policy from Georgetown, with a con-centration in education, social and family policy. She has studied community organizing and socialchange with Marshall Ganz at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Her thesis on racialinequality in the United States was accepted for an inaugural institute on race and wealth funded bythe Ford Foundation at Howard University’s economics department. At Georgetown, she assisted withresearch at the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Systems Integration and studied advocacy andsocial change with Pablo Eisenberg. Niki’s research interests include structural racialization, which,she has studied with john a. powell, director of the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society andRobert D. Haas Chancellor’s Chair in Equity and Inclusion at the University of California, Berkeley.

Kevin Laskowski is NCRP's senior research and policy associate. He joined NCRP in 2009 as fieldassociate, successfully coordinating membership services and supporting the field department innational partnerships, collaboratives and other special initiatives. Prior to joining NCRP, Kevin servedas a program coordinator for the National Center for Family Philanthropy. Kevin holds a B.A. inGovernment and International Politics from George Mason University.

The crises affecting our nation and the worldhave prompted philanthropists to becomemore organized, focused and, perhaps aboveall, “strategic” in their efforts. The movementtoward “strategic philanthropy” has alreadycontributed to greater philanthropic effective-ness. Yet, despite important contributions toeducation, health, the arts and the environ-ment, it is clear that philanthropy’s ultimateimpact is still limited. Great disparities alongthe lines of race, gender, class and otheridentity markers persist and, in some cases,are even exacerbated.

This suggests that something is missingfrom our sector’s understanding of whatmakes for truly strategic and effective philan-thropy: • A clear understanding of one’s goals

includes not only the desired impact butalso identifies who will benefit (or not)and how.

• A commitment to evidence-based strategycannot ignore the tangible, positive

impact – and often the necessity – ofinfluencing public policy.

• Keeping a philanthropic strategy on courserequires the input of those who stand togain or lose the most from grantmaking: thegrantees and the communities they serve.

Truly strategic philanthropy is social jus-tice philanthropy.

Philanthropy contributes a fraction of theneeded monies to ameliorate great socio-eco-nomic inequities, but grantmakers have anopportunity to maximize the impact of theirdollars by adding a “social justice lens” whendeveloping their strategies.1 Unless grantmak-ers intentionally prioritize and engage under-served communities and invest in variousforms of advocacy, organizing and civicengagement to effect change, they are unlike-ly to achieve their goals, regardless of theirmission or program focus. The future of phi-lanthropy lies in bringing together justiceand strategy.

1

REAL RESULTS Why Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice Philanthropy

High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy

In 2009, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) published Criteria for Philanthropy at ItsBest: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact.2 A call to increase investments in underservedcommunities, public policy engagement and general operating and multi-year support, Criteria was produced asa helpful tool for all grantmakers that could help maximize the impact of a foundation’s mission or issue focus.

Responding to questions from funders about how the metrics in Criteria applied to their grantmaking for par-ticular issues, NCRP completed a series of research reports as part of its High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy(HISP) project. From October 2010 through February 2012, NCRP partnered with Grantmakers for Education,Grantmakers In Health, Grantmakers in the Arts and the Environmental Grantmakers Association to develop in-depth reports on education,3 health,4 arts and culture5 and the environment,6 respectively. Each report is avail-able on NCRP’s web site at http://www.ncrp.org/paib/high-impact-strategies-philanthropy.

Authored by experts in each field, the reports included analyses of grantmaking trends, stories of success andrecommendations for funders. The HISP series demonstrates powerfully that prioritizing underserved communi-ties and social justice can help funders across all issues maximize their impact. Each report is summarized insidebars of this publication.

DEFINING STRATEGY AND SOCIAL JUSTICEWhat is strategic philanthropy? What is socialjustice philanthropy?

The concept of “strategic philanthropy” hasgained great currency in recent years withthe rise of donors demonstrating a renewedconcern for maximizing the impact of theirgrants. A number of organizations,Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, theCenter for Effective Philanthropy, TCC Group,FSG and Bridgespan Group, among others,have adopted the discourse and study of phil-anthropic strategy, effectiveness and impact,bringing interested donors and foundationstogether and further informing this move-ment. Substantial literature for donors andphilanthropy professionals on philanthropicstrategy has emerged as well, includingworks by Peter Frumkin,7 Thomas Tierney andJoel Fleishman,8 and Charles Bronfman andJeffrey Solomon,9 among others.

As Paul Brest and Hal Harvey describestrategic philanthropy in their 2008 book onthe subject:

Strategic philanthropy consists of: Clearlydefined goals, commensurate with resources;strategies for achieving the goals; strategies thatare based on sound evidence; and feedback tokeep the strategy on course.Strategic philanthro-py deploys resources to have maximum impact-to make the biggest possible difference.10

Simultaneously, there is rekindled interest in“social justice philanthropy,” both as part of along history of community-based and communi-ty-driven philanthropy and in response to strate-gic philanthropy’s often linear, technocratic viewof social change. Albert Ruesga and DeborahPuntenney argue that social justice philanthropydraws on a number of familiar and relatedphilosophical traditions and concepts, includinguniversal human rights, fairness, the rule of lawand community empowerment.11

The National Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy (NCRP) has long promoted anddocumented the work of these social justicephilanthropists. While they may have varyingunderstandings of what actually comprises“social justice” in the charitable sector andwhether and how philanthropy can bestadvance it, it is possible to define and meas-ure levels of such giving.12

NCRP helped to craft the FoundationCenter’s definition of social justice philanthro-py as “the granting of philanthropic contribu-tions to nonprofit organizations based in theUnited States and other countries that workfor structural change in order to increase theopportunity of those who are the least well offpolitically, economically and socially.”13

Most recently, NCRP’s High ImpactStrategies for Philanthropy (HISP) seriesexamined the role that social justice philan-thropy can and could play in various issueareas. Perhaps the most important lesson ofthese reports is that when these two philan-thropic movements are at their best, they arein fact one and the same.

THE LIMITS OF STRATEGICPHILANTHROPYStrategic philanthropy must grapple with itspreference for linear, top-down, technocraticsolutions to community problems.

Each of the HISP reports portrayed a philan-thropic landscape in which there is much topraise but also much to be done. Persistentdisparities keep certain communities fromequal opportunity:

2

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

• While the public schools attended by someU.S. students are among the best in theworld, other children are cast off into unsafe,unsupportive, unchallenging and under-resourced schools where their chances ofacademic success are minimal.14

• Despite medical advances that haveincreased life expectancy and quality oflife for many of its citizens, the UnitedStates spends more money for its frag-mented, unequal and inefficient healthcare system than any other developedcountry in the world (17.6 percent of ourGDP) - only to have a less healthy popula-tion than similarly resourced countries.15

• A rich, dynamic nonprofit arts sector contributes billions of dollars to the econ-omy,16 but the evidence suggests that mostarts philanthropy is not meeting the needsof our most vulnerable populations, failingto nurture an essential means of express-ing identity, overcoming difference andeffecting social change.17

• Despite grantmakers’ provision of $10 billion in grants to environmental causesfrom 2000 through 2009, environmentalinitiatives have been stalled at the federallevel for decades while existing regulationshave been rolled back and undermined.18

Even as philanthropy has attempted tobecome more strategic, many of these dispar-ities have only widened. Albert Ruesga, presi-dent and CEO of the Greater New OrleansFoundation, contends:

These disparities also highlight, in my view,the significant shortcomings of philanthropy-as-usual. To make the same kinds of grantsyear after year to the same communities, tosee the same disparities persist and evenwiden, and not to question deeply one’swhole approach to giving, is to do philan-thropy in bad faith. Social justice philanthro-py offers us a way of recommitting ourselvesto philanthropy’s great aims while holdingourselves accountable for its heretofore lack-lustre outcomes.19

Kristi Kimball and Malka Kopell, formerprogram officers at the William and FloraHewlett Foundation, argue, “The strategicphilanthropy movement has been a positiveinfluence in recent years by encouragingfoundations to clarify their goals and regular-ly evaluate their progress. But it has alsofueled practices that undermine the nonprofitsector’s impact, rather than amplify it.”20 Theexcesses of philanthropic strategy – narrowfoci, burdensome paperwork and an overlytechnocratic view of social change – renderfoundations unresponsive to grantees and thewider community.

Strategic philanthropy requires substantiveattention to issues of fairness and justice toachieve its vision of greater impact. GaraLaMarche writes that the strategic philanthro-py movement “has strayed too far from whyanyone should be concerned about effective-ness at all, from passion about the deep andtenacious societal inequities that move any-one to philanthropy in the first place.”21

As Paul Connolly of the TCC Group wrote,the last 15 years have witnessed a trendtoward a more technocratic philanthropy,which is often seen as the diametric oppositeof humanistic philanthropy. He contends thatthe two approaches are part of a continuumand that the best elements of each should bebalanced for foundations to be more effec-tive: the disciplined strategies and results-focus from the technocratic side along with

3

Real Results: Why Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice Philanthropy

TABLE 1: THE LIMITS OF STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY

STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY

Clear goals

Evidence-based strategy

Feedback

ITS LIMITS

Narrow foci, tunnel vision, silos

Burdensome paperwork, short-term goals, eschews public policy

Linear, technocratic view of social change

the values and flexibility of the humanisticapproach. “Staff and board leaders at founda-tions should articulate the humanistic-tech-nocratic blend they desire, deliberately distillit into the organizational culture and every-day practices, and hire staff who possessmultiple intelligences.”22

Social justice philanthropy is strategicphilanthropy:• A clear understanding of one’s goals

requires an understanding of who willbenefit and how.

• A commitment to evidence-based strategyacknowledges the imperative of influenc-ing public policy by funding advocacy,community organizing, civic engagementand other related activities.

• Setting and keeping a justice-driven strate-gy on course requires the input of thosewho stand to gain or lose the most fromgrantmaking: the grantees and the com-munities they serve.

It is this dual commitment to justice andstrategy that has invigorated many successfulphilanthropic efforts. The HISP series details anumber of such victories. Unfortunately, asLaMarche notes, “Even those relatively few

[foundations that] are comfortable supportingpublic policy advocacy tend not to talk aboutit, or make any effort to knit the disparateissues and problems they deal with into alarger frame.”23

Those grantmakers that have attempted toinfluence public policy have voiced the frustra-tions that come when even the most sophisti-cated of strategies runs aground on the shoalsof politics. As Paul Brest noted in his reflectionson the Hewlett Foundation’s experience, “Inretrospect, I should have known better …Foundations that continue to deal with politicalpolarization, not to mention the role of moneyin U.S. politics, will need to develop strategiesbased on a more realistic understanding ofhuman nature and political behavior.”24

Brest and Harvey have argued that “asound strategy makes success possible; itsabsence virtually ensures failure.”25 We con-tend that justice is integral to sound strategy,and that it is the absence of justice, particular-ly the game-changing influence of those mostaffected, from discussions of strategy that hasdiminished philanthropy’s ultimate impact.

When so many systemic disparities persistdespite billions of philanthropic dollars beinginvested in various programs and communi-ties, how successful have even the moststrategic philanthropic interventions reallybeen? Indeed, philanthropy’s relatively scarceresources will never by themselves solve thesystemic problems that manifest themselvesas disparities in our society. That is why phi-lanthropy needs to leverage its limitedresources by prioritizing and empoweringunderserved communities.

Figure 1 demonstrates the hoped-for trajec-tory of strategic philanthropy. As philanthro-pists have become more concerned withdemonstrating effectiveness, they have tendedto adopt the hallmarks of strategic philanthro-py, e.g., standardized application and report-ing requirements, grant evaluation and met-rics. The emphasis on broader systemic trans-formation, prioritizing and including under-served communities and support of communi-ty organizing – stances and tactics longunderstood by social justice philanthropists –are comparatively neglected. These paths are


4

Increasing Focus on Strategy

Increasing Focus onSocial Justice• Emphasis on

social and sys-temic change

• Prioritizes andempowersunderservedcommunities

• Advocacy, communityorganizing and civicengagement by those mostaffected

• Emphasis on measurable impact• Clear goals

• Evidence-based strategy• Feedback

Philanthropy’s Origins: Charity

Philanthropy’s Present:Strategic Philanthropy!

Philanthropy’s Future: Strategy and Social Justice?

FIGURE 1. STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY’S LEARNINGCURVE: BRINGING JUSTICE AND STRATEGY TOGETHERFOR PHILANTHROPY AT ITS BEST

not necessarily opposed. Philanthropy is at itsbest when these twin movements are fused inthe service of the common good.

Unless grantmakers prioritize underservedcommunities and invest in advocacy, organiz-ing and civic engagement strategies to effectchange, grantmakers are unlikely to succeedin their strategic goals, whatever they may be.Justice and strategy must be brought togeth-er, so that whatever is just may be strategic,and whatever is strategic may be just.26

DEFINING GOALS: WHO BENEFITS? Unless grantmakers intentionally prioritize or “target” vulnerable communities, they riskundermining their own efforts, reinforcing disparities instead of mitigating them.

The question of “who benefits?” must becentral to any strategic vision. Social justicephilanthropy, with its concern for and rela-tionships with grantees and communitiesbeing served, provides a much-needed cor-rective to strategic excess. Strategic philan-thropists are typically attempting to influ-ence some sort of system. Funders might beworking to improve a school, hospital, the-ater or wetland, or the larger networks –organizational, political, ecological – ofwhich they are a part. Without an explicitlens of benefitting those at the margins,donors run the risk of reinforcing rather thanmitigating inequities in any issue they fund.For example, funders combating diabetes,breast cancer or HIV would see greaterimpact if their grantmaking acknowledgedhigher incidence rates among AfricanAmerican and Latino communities.

By and large, philanthropists do not investat significant levels with the explicit intentionof benefitting underserved and marginalizedcommunities.

Mary Vallier-Kaplan, vice president andCOO of the Endowment for Healthexplains the foundation’s mission “toimprove the health and reduce the burdenof illness for the people of New Hampshire– especially the vulnerable and under-served” in this way:

5


Many American students – especially those from under-served communities – remain trapped in a vicious cycle ofeducational inequities and poor outcomes. Education fun-ders would more effectively achieve their missions if theyaddressed the root causes of intergenerational educationalinequalities. They can do so by realigning their grantmak-ing strategies to meet the needs of communities they aim toserve as articulated by them.

Confronting Systemic Inequity in EducationBy Kevin Welner & Amy Farley

FIGURE 2. STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY’S LEARNINGCURVE: EDUCATION








identifying and supporting reform-minded school administrators

parent organizing

Policy engagement work on behalf of vulner-able communities requires courage. We feelit’s a responsibility and it’s what philanthropyis uniquely able to do, compared to othersectors. While the money we invest in proj-ects is important, leveraging our voice hasbecome a tool far greater than we anticipat-ed … This is the core idea – it’s the role of afoundation that realizes there’s a populationthat doesn’t receive fairness, respect andcompassion. A foundation should take riskswith a population that isn’t one that peoplenaturally want to deal with in an integratedapproach. We invest $400,000 a year to pro-vide operating grants with five-year commit-ments to statewide advocacy, knowledgeand capacity building organizations early onbecause these organizations shouldn’t go off-mission. We trust them. Everyone else in thesystem needs them.27

Universal programs will inevitably benefitsome who remain underserved but targetedfunding with a social justice purpose has uni-versal impact. For instance, philanthropistsoften invest in local hospitals and arts institu-tions. Certainly, many will benefit from theseinvestments, but what of those without healthinsurance or those who cannot afford admis-sion or transportation to an iconic culturalcenter? Lack of access to community institu-tions, often along the lines of income andrace, limits philanthropy’s success.

In Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change,Holly Sidford notes the work of Cool Culture,which helps “50,000 income-eligible familiesaccess and enjoy 90 of New York City’sworld-class cultural institutions for free, pro-viding children with experiences that improveliteracy and learning.”28

The benefits of universal investments donot always trickle down to those that mightneed it the most; therefore, a truly strategicphilanthropist will employ the social justicetool of “targeted universalism.” Targetingfunding to benefit underserved communitiesacknowledges the specific needs of theintended beneficiaries while producing posi-tive universal impact. Targeted universalism“supports the needs of the particular while

6


FIGURE 3. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FOUNDATION GRANTDOLLARS IN SELECT ISSUE AREAS WERE CLASSIFIED ASBENEFITTING MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES?

Source: NCRP analysis of Foundation Center data, 2007-2010, NCRP encouragesfunders to provide at least 50 percent of their grant dollars to benefit underservedcommunities, broadly defined. For foundations with missions that make this bench-mark difficult to achieve, NCRP proposes a lower threshold of 20 percent.This chartuses the alternative benchmark for arts and culture and the environment.

FIGURE 4. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FOUNDATIONS INSELECT ISSUE AREAS ALLOCATED AT LEAST 50 PERCENTOF GRANT DOLLARS FOR THE BENEFIT OFMARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES?*

Education Health Arts andCulture

Environment All IssueAreas

60%

40%

20%

11%

31%

18%

12%17%



60%

40%

20%21%

39%

10%

15%

40%

Source: NCRP analysis of Foundation Center data, 2007-2010

Americans rely on an inequitable, inefficient and expen-sive health care system where our health outcomes areoverwhelmingly determined by social factors includinggeography, wealth, race and gender. Philanthropy mustreconsider its strategies to maximize the impact of its limited contributions relative to those of the public sectorand become the highest performing supplement to systemic and institutional reform efforts in health care.

Towards Transformative Change in Health CareBy Terri Langston

FIGURE 5. STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY’S LEARNINGCURVE: HEALTH








grant toward a new hospital wing

local coalition-buildingfor healthcare reform

reminding us we are all part of the samesocial fabric.”29 Targeting within universalprograms has the potential to make positivecontributions to our communities that accrueto each of us.

As Sarah Hansen noted in Cultivating theGrassroots: A Winning Approach forEnvironment and Climate Funders, acknowl-edging that geography, marital status andother factors serve as constraints that keepcertain communities from equality of oppor-tunity puts the onus on grantmakers to ensurethat the benefits of grantmaking reach thesecommunities often disproportionately impact-ed by various harms.30

Further, when the conditions of vulnerablepopulations improve, there is a ripple effectthrough which all of us benefit. In TowardsTransformative Change in Health Care, TerriLangston examines the work of the Campaignfor Better Care, funded by the AtlanticPhilanthropies and executed by the NationalPartnership for Women and Families in con-junction with Community Catalyst and theNational Health Law Program. The campaigninvolves patients, their caregivers and con-sumer advocates in identifying models ofcoordinated care for people with multiplechronic conditions. The campaign focuses onthose who are eligible for both Medicare andMedicaid because, in its words, “If we canmake our health system work for them, wecan make it work for everyone.”31

The Coalition for Educational Justice (CEJ)in New York City provides an excellent exam-ple of a coalition that began with a concernabout one population of students identifiedas particularly vulnerable – in this case, low-income children of color – and undertook acampaign that resulted in positive change forall students. In one particularly compellingeffort, CEJ built a constituency of predomi-nantly low-income parents of color inBrooklyn neighborhoods who worked withresearchers to identify significant educationalproblems in their community. These concernsgrew into a citywide campaign, which led to“the establishment of a Department ofEducation Middle School Success incentivegrant fund of almost $30 million to support

7


comprehensive reform in low performingmiddle grade schools.”

As Kevin Welner and Amy Farley state, thegrant support provided by dozens of grantmak-ers to the CEJ and its members embodies theideal of targeted universalism. The grants weredesigned specifically to target the needs of a vul-nerable community, but the citywide campaignthose grants made possible sought to improvethe educational experiences and opportunities ofall students. In a New York City Department ofEducation press release following the announce-ment of follow-up support, CEJ parent leaderCarol Boyd explained that “[t]oday is a primeexample of what can happen when the DOEand parents work in concert on behalf of thebiggest stakeholders, the school children of NewYork City. … CEJ has worked tirelessly to ensurethat one day all of our children will have equaleducational access and opportunity for successregardless of neighborhood economic status, orlanguage of origin. These grants are one smallstep in that direction.”32

Grantmaker goals, then, should be estab-lished so that they include an explicit identifi-cation of the communities that the foundationseeks to benefit.

EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGY:ADVOCACY, ORGANIZING AND CIVICENGAGEMENTPublic policy affects everything we do. Withoutdevoting at least some resources to shape it, werisk losing whatever we accomplish.

Changing systems requires strategies and tac-tics designed to affect systems as a whole. Atthe very least, philanthropists need leverageto influence other actors, e.g., governments,business and perhaps other grantmakers whocan bring greater resources and influence tobear on an issue of interest.

Emmett Carson, CEO and president ofthe Silicon Valley Community Foundation,maintains:

The magnitude of societal change that isenvisioned in these change-oriented missionstatements cannot be achieved through the

8


FIGURE 6. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FOUNDATIONGRANT DOLLARS IN SELECT ISSUE AREAS WERECLASSIFIED AS ADVANCING SOCIAL JUSTICE?

Source: NCRP analysis of Foundation Center data, 2007-2010. NCRP suggeststhat grantmakers provide at least 25 percent of grant dollars to advancesocial justice.

FIGURE 7. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FOUNDATIONS INSELECT ISSUE AREAS ALLOCATED AT LEAST 25 PERCENTTO ADVANCING SOCIAL JUSTICE?



60%

40%

20%

2% 4% 5% 4%8%



60%

40%

20%

Source: NCRP analysis of Foundation Center data, 2007-2010

6%

11%

4%

11%15%

support of direct human services. Change-oriented mission statements – by necessity –require a foundation to pursue public policyefforts that attempt to fundamentally changehow the system operates.33

Communities most affected by persistent dis-parities are ripe for engagement and are oftenbuilding their own movements. With more philanthropic resources explicitly dedicated tothese efforts, the opportunities for moreadvancement could increase significantly.

Regrettably, foundations are not investingin social justice or even public policy-relatedactivities at significant levels.

A blanket prohibition on such activities isthe very opposite of strategic. As NCRP’sresearch has demonstrated extensively, advo-cacy, organizing and civic engagement effortshave substantial, measurable impact on theissues that grantmakers care about.34 (See“Leveraging Limited Dollars” below.)

For instance, in education, RandiWeingarten, president of the AmericanFederation of Teachers, points to a growingmovement of parents and teachers acrossmany school systems developing communityschools, “neighborhood public schools thatmeet students’ academic, enrichment, socialand health needs by coordinating partners andresources. Using the school as a hub for need-

ed services and supports, community schoolsconnect the school, students, families and theneighborhood.”35 The results are impressive,with higher attendance and graduation rates,lowered achievement gaps among differentraces and improved parent engagement.

The movement for more community-basedhealth care is generating needed savings in asystem with skyrocketing costs. A study doneby Virginia Commonwealth University on agroup of lower-income and uninsured peopleenrolled in a community-based primary careprogram for three years found that inpatientcosts decreased each year, there were feweremergency department visits and per-patientcosts declined by 49 percent.36

There is a nascent and growing movementlinking the arts with social justice. Constituentsengaged in this work, comprising the intersec-tion of community activism and practice of arts,include community organizers, funders, artistsand young workers. This movement works on arange of policy issues from prison reform toimmigration and environmental racism.According to the Foundation Center, funding forarts and culture-based social justice work dou-bled from 2002 to 2006 (to $26.7 million) andincreased to $28 million in 2009.37 Regardlessof socioeconomic level, students with signifi-cant exposure to the arts are more likely tograduate high school and go to college.38

9


Leveraging Limited Dollars

Advocacy, organizing and civic engagement strategies are generating measurable impact in our communitiesevery day. NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project investigated the work of 110 organizations in 13states.39 Over the course of seven reports, NCRP documented the $26.6 billion in benefits for communities andtaxpayers that these groups help to generate, often assisting some of the most underserved groups in society. Forevery dollar grantmakers and other donors provided for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement work, com-munities reaped $115 in monetized benefits.

The groups affected hundreds of policies on a broad range of issues. Some efforts championed civil and legalrights. Others expanded vital government programs or made existing initiatives more efficient and effective. Stillothers actually helped generate public revenue. All leveraged the power of everyday citizens – more than700,000 of them, enough people to fill the nation’s seven largest football stadiums at once – to change theircommunities for the better. This engaged citizenry is an important tool for strategic philanthropy and an indis-pensable part of our democracy.

For a directory of all the documented impacts, visit http://www.ncrp.org/gcip.

In a campaign led by Latina immigrantwomen and Latino high school students,Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)successfully stopped the city of Vernon insoutheast Los Angeles County from buildinga 943-megawatt fossil fuel plant. The plantwould have emitted 1.7 million tons of toxinsand 2.5 million tons of greenhouse gasesevery year, harming residents well beyondVernon. As Sarah Hansen pointed out, “Thissuggests the power of underserved commu-nities to challenge power when the grass-roots are mobilized and well-resourced.”40

Philanthropy can be a democratic forcewhen it works to advance community inter-ests and prioritizes underserved communitiesworking for positive change. When workreflects elite and grassroots interests alike andunites them through coalition building, itstrengthens individuals’ and groups’ ability toact on their own as well as shared values.Without this wider democratic agency, it isdifficult to imagine how we can improve ourschools, our health, produce a vibrant cultureor clean up our environment.

STAYING ON COURSE: AUTHENTICENGAGEMENT WITH GRANTEES ANDCOMMUNITIESIdeas do not always advance solely on themerits. Mobilizing vulnerable and under-served communities is essential to achievinglasting change.

In the absence of broad public support,meaningful policy change is hard to achieve,and whatever changes do occur are unlikelyto last or achieve broad-scale impact.Strategic philanthropy is unlikely to succeedwithout direct engagement with the commu-nities it seeks to serve.

Unfortunately, foundations seeking toaffect broad-scale change frequently look fororganizations that appear to offer significantcapacity or prestige, and more often than notinvest in larger, elite institutions, frequentlyoverlooking effective but medium and small-er organizations. The HISP reports noted that,despite the valuable role these organizations

10


FIGURE 8. STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY’S LEARNINGCURVE: ARTS AND CULTURE








gift to modern art museum

grants to support new andemerging artists in an art-basedcommunity development effort

Arts and culture are essential means by which we identifyand express ourselves, overcome differences and advancejustice and democracy. Every year, foundations award about$2.3 billion to the arts and culture, but the distribution ofthese funds does not reflect the country’s evolving culturallandscape and changing demographics. Foundations muststay abreast with changes in the cultural sector to continueto be relevant to the evolving needs of our communities.Grantmakers should consider making justice and equity acore principle of arts grantmaking. They can help create amore inclusive cultural sector and help advance ourdemocracy by investing substantial funds in arts-focusedadvocacy, civic engagement and community organizing.

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

By Holly Sidford

play in the nonprofit ecosystem, it is thelargest nonprofits in each sector that receivethe majority of charitable contributions, giftsand grants. These organizations are notalways as connected to grassroots groups thatoften can better represent and communicatethe voices of those closest to the problems athand, i.e., the communities served, and animportant perspective is lost. This imbalancein philanthropic giving often reflects andreinforces disparities of race, gender andclass that mark our society.

Strategic philanthropists are on the righttrack in seeking “feedback to keep a strategyon course,” but this implies that authenticinput can be obtained at arm’s length.Surveys of grantees and constituents providean important window into how grants areserving communities, but the surest way ofstaying on course and learning from mistakesis to include the voices of change agents andthe intended beneficiaries of one’s grantmak-ing in developing and refining strategy. To dootherwise is simply to adopt the “veneer ofstrategic philanthropy.”41

Anthony Thigpenn, president of CaliforniaCalls, an alliance of nonprofits that works toengage the state’s residents in advancing pro-gressive budget and tax reforms, commentsabout the way that the funding collaborativeCalifornia Civic Participation Funders works:“All too often, there is a disconnect betweenfunders and practitioners in their perceptionsof what’s needed to move the work forward.Having funders roll up their sleeves, meetwith groups, determine where there areneeds, and develop plans accordingly is agreat advance.”42

John Jackson of the Schott Foundation forPublic Education explains how his organiza-tion measures impact:

We measure impact by, first of all, ultimately,looking at the policy change. How many chil-dren have access to early education today? Arethere more children that have access to highlyeffective teachers? But we also look at are weengaging communities and the sector in abroad-based movement … we’re engaging par-ents and students. So parents and communities

that are engaged are likely to have a better edu-cational system. So we measure impact at themacro level by the systemic policy changes thatlead to closing the opportunity gaps; we meas-ure impact at the micro level by looking at thelevel of the broad-based movement that we’rebuilding in order to build that public will, tobuild that opportunity to learn.43

It is precisely this lack of a diverse, broad-based movement that Sarah Hansen blamesfor a lack of progress on environmentalissues, writing that “any push for environ-mental change that fails to prioritize com-munities of color is a losing strategy.”44

Arguably, the same can be said of any move-ment that seeks to effect broad-scale socialchange in any issue.

Community organizing in communities ofcolor was instrumental in defeatingCalifornia’s Proposition 23. In 2006, theCalifornia legislature passed groundbreakingcurbs on greenhouse gas emissions. Fouryears later, a group of Texas oil companiesused California’s ballot measure process toattempt to stop their implementation.

11

Real Results: Why Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice PhilanthropyIm

age courtesy of Com

munities for a Better Environm

ent.

Environmental, economic and racial justiceorganizations in California joined forces tocreate Communities United Against the DirtyEnergy Proposition to organize in the lower-income communities of color most impactedby environmental ills. Overall, the coalitionhad one-on-one conversations with morethan 250,000 households across California,and organized events specifically designed toresonate with communities on the ground.Savvy community-based organizations work-ing block-by-block in diverse neighborhoodswere not only able to beat back millionsspent by big oil to defeat the measure, butperhaps more importantly, engaged new,active constituencies supporting environmen-tal change going forward.45

Continuing to fund exclusively large, top-down advocacy organizations is a losingstrategy because it fails to capitalize on themomentum among communities that arealready mobilizing for change and securingimportant wins.

Further, our changing demographics are asound rationale for confronting disparitiesand effecting lasting change. For example,race persists as a fundamental way that peo-ple identify themselves and each other, andnon-white births surpassed white births in themost recent census and non-Hispanics whiteswill become the minority by 2040. Also, ourpopulation is younger, thus engaging the nextgeneration of leaders is critically importantfor our sector to remain relevant. Strategiesthat benefit, engage and empower under-served communities are key to greater impact– whatever a foundation’s area of focus.

As Irene Frye, executive director of theRetirement Research Foundation states:

You have to marry social services withadvocacy in health grantmaking; the socialdeterminants of health are far too impor-tant to use an either/or approach.Moreover, it isn’t just advocacy by onefoundation that will result in long-term sys-temic reform that benefits our constituents.It’s collective advocacy that will ensurethat the needs of vulnerable elderly com-munity members are met in the future.46

12


FIGURE 9. STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY’S LEARNINGCURVE: THE ENVIRONMENT








top-down advocacy forcap-and-trade legislation

grassroots efforts to prevent thebuilding of new fossil fuel plants

From 2000-2009, grantmakers provided $10 billion forenvironment and climate work, funding primarily top-down strategies and inside-the-beltway organizations. Yet,we have not seen significant policy wins at the nationallevel since the 1980s. Any push for environmental changethat does not engage and empower those most affected byenvironmental harms is a losing strategy. By investing heav-ily in grassroots communities and the nonprofits that servethem, funders can build on local successes and create thepolitical will to achieve lasting change in environment-and climate-related policy.

Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for

Environment and Climate FundersBy Sarah Hansen

CONCLUSION: BRINGING JUSTICE ANDSTRATEGY TOGETHERStrategic philanthropy at its best is social jus-tice philanthropy.

In an essay they wrote in Power in Policy: AFunder’s Guide to Advocacy and CivicParticipation in 2007, veteran change-makersCynthia Gibson and Geri Mannion argue:

Foundations should not talk in the abstractabout strengthening democracy; they shoulddo it by funding projects that support theirmission and add voices to the debate. If foun-dations view nonprofits as partners in solvingproblems and creating opportunities via pub-lic policy, then more can be accomplished.47

Success in changing systems requires ahealthy and well-coordinated nonprofitecosystem comprising foundations, granteesand affected communities. When one part ofthe nonprofit system changes for better orworse, the entire system is affected. Whenstrategic philanthropy overly favors large-scale organizations, it undercuts philanthrop-ic impact, marginalizing smaller organiza-tions that work with and on behalf of under-served groups. This failure to maximize theimpact of limited contributions is a disserviceto the foundations’ own mission, and to therich diversity of the nonprofit sector.

To increase grantee effectiveness andimpact regardless of issue focus, foundationsalso need to provide them with the types ofsupport that best equip them to succeed inachieving shared goals. For instance, despitethe vast evidence demonstrating the impor-tance of general operating and multi-yearsupport to nonprofit success, including fromgrantees themselves, grantmakers overwhelm-ingly continue to disburse annually renewedproject support. General operating supporthas not increased as a share of total grantdollars in a decade,48 and multi-year supportremains scarce.49 Since the recession hit in2008, nonprofits have experienced shrinkingbudgets in the midst of much higher demandfor services. Grassroots organizations have

been particularly hard-hit – four out of tenorganizations have depleting resources, andone-third are living month-to-month. In fact,at least one organization shuts down everymonth.50 Yet, there are some hopeful signs:Grantmakers for Effective Organizations’recent survey of its members found that thosefoundations that listen to their grantees’needs are more likely to provide them withlong-term core support.51

Different funders will have different inter-ests and will be comfortable with funding dif-ferent parts of the ecosystem. The suggestedmetrics for underserved communities andsocial justice are aspirational but achievableguidelines for funders to consider whendeveloping their strategies. Just as each foun-dation will be comfortable with funding dif-ferent parts of the nonprofit sector, eachgrantmaker should engage in critical self-reflection about investing more and moreintentionally in underserved communitiesand in social justice.

Grantmakers should explore the possibili-ties that social justice philanthropy can addto their discussions of strategy with theirtrustees. Justin Laing, program officer of TheHeinz Endowments, finds that boards areoften ready for these conversations:

In my experience, board members may bemore open to discussion of equity issues,including race and class, than wouldappear. Sometimes, it’s the staff that gets inthe way because we are hesitant to raisesuch sensitive issues, or we don’t know howto change policies and practices if theboard endorses a stronger commitment toequitable grantmaking.52

Ultimately, it will be up to each founda-tion and its trustees to decide on the beststrategy to realize its vision. However, thepersistence of long-standing disparities amidthe advent of strategic philanthropy suggeststhat something is missing from the currentparadigm. We contend that, at their best,social justice philanthropy and strategic phi-lanthropy are not at odds. Indeed, the two

13


are one and the same. To mitigate thetremendous structural barriers to equity anddemocracy, grantmakers should consider seri-ously adding a social justice lens to theirstrategy; not doing so diminishes philanthrop-ic impact. If more grantmakers employ target-ing and social justice in their strategy, a morejust and democratic society is possible.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?How might your philanthropy bring togetherstrategy and justice for greater impact and abetter world?

1. What is your vision of success? What isyour strategy?

2. What are some of the barriers to makingprogress on issues of concern to you?How is your philanthropy working toaddress those challenges?

3. Who benefits from your philanthropy?What proportion of your philanthropybenefits underserved communities, e.g.,economically disadvantaged persons,racial and ethnic minorities, women andgirls, single parents, offenders and ex-offenders and LGBTQ communities? Areyou comfortable with this level of fundingfor vulnerable populations?

4. How do you ensure that your philanthropy

reaches those who might benefit mostfrom it?

5. What role does public policy play in yourtheory of change that informs your grant-making strategy? What are some of thebarriers to funding public policy andadvocacy, community organizing andcivic engagement at your foundation?How might greater public policy engage-ment among the nonprofits you fundadvance your mission and complementyour current efforts?

6. What proportion of your grant dollarsinfluences public policy relevant to yourissue focus? How much of your grantmak-ing supports advocacy, organizing or civicengagement on behalf of those who arethe least well off politically, economicallyand socially? Are you comfortable withhow much of your portfolio is dedicatedto social justice work?

7. How does the foundation evaluate theimpact of its grantmaking? How does thislearning influence your theory of change,your strategy and grantmaking decisions?

8. How are grantees and the communitiesthey serve involved in your foundation’slearning process? How do they informdecision-making? Are you providinggrantees with sufficient general operatingand multi-year support?

14


TABLE 2: STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY AS SOCIAL JUSTICE PHILANTHROPY

STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY

Clear goals

Evidence-based strategy

Feedback

ITS LIMITS

Narrow foci, tunnel vision, silos

Burdensome paperwork, short-term goals, eschews public policy

Linear, technocratic view of social change

STRATEGY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Targeted universalism

Advocacy, community organizing, civic engagement and other related activities

Grantees and the communities they serve drive the strategy

15


References

1. Michael Seltzer, “The Case for Using a Social Justice Lens in Grantmaking,” GMNSight (Washington,D.C.: Grant Managers Network, Summer 2012), p. 14-17.

2. Niki Jagpal, Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance GrantmakerImpact (Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, March 2009). Amongother recommendations, Criteria proposes that funders provide at least 50 percent of their grant dol-lars to benefit underserved communities, broadly defined. For foundations with missions that makethis benchmark difficult to achieve, NCRP proposes a lower threshold of 20 percent. NCRP proposesthat all funders provide at least 25 percent of grant dollars for social justice grantmaking, a proxy foradvocacy, organizing and civic engagement.

3. Kevin Welner and Amy Farley, Confronting Systemic Inequity in Education (Washington, D.C.:National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, October 2010), http://www.ncrp.org/paib/educa-tion-philanthropy.

4. Terri Langston, Towards Transformative Change in Health Care (Washington, D.C.: NationalCommittee for Responsive Philanthropy, April 2011), http://www.ncrp.org/paib/health-philanthropy.

5. Holly Sidford, Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change (Washington, D.C.: National Committee forResponsive Philanthropy, October 2011), http://www.ncrp.org/paib/arts-culture-philanthropy.

6. Sarah Hansen, Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders(Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, February 2012),http://www.ncrp.org/paib/environment-climate-philanthropy.

7. Peter Frumkin, Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy (Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press, 2006). See also Peter Frumkin, The Essence of Strategic Giving: A Practical Guide forDonors and Fundraisers (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010).

8. Thomas J. Tierney and Joel L. Fleishman, Give Smart: Philanthropy that Gets Results (New York:PublicAffairs, 2011).

9. Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon, The Art of Giving: Where the Soul Meets a Business Plan(New York: Jossey-Bass, 2009).

10. Paul Brest and Hal Harvey, Money Well Spent: A Strategic Plan for Smart Philanthropy (New York:Bloomberg, 2008), p. 17.

11. G. Albert Ruesga and Deborah Puntenney, Social Justice Philanthropy: An Initial Framework forPositioning This Work (New York: Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace, Ford Foundation, May2010), http://www.p-sj.org/files/Social%20Justice%20Philanthropy%20Traditions.pdf.

12. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Social Justice Philanthropy: The Latest Trend or aLasting Lens for Grantmaking? (Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy,2005), http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/Social_Justice_Philanthropy-Low%20Res.pdf.

13. See The Foundation Center, Key Facts on Social Justice Grantmaking (New York: Foundation Center,2011), http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/keyfacts_social_2011.pdf, and Tanya E.Coke, Scott Nielsen, Henry A.J. Ramos, Sherry Seward and Bradford K. Smith, Social JusticeGrantmaking II: An Update on U.S. Foundation Trends, ed. Steven Lawrence (New York: FoundationCenter, 2009).

14. Welner and Farley, op. cit., p. 8.15. Langston, op. cit., p. 10.16. Americans for the Arts, Arts & Economic Prosperity IV: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and

Culture Organizations and Their Audiences (Washington, D.C.: Americans for the Arts, 2012),http://www.artsusa.org/pdf/information_services/research/services/economic_impact/aepiv/AEP4_NationalSummaryReport.pdf.

17. Sidford, op. cit.18. Hansen, op. cit.

16


19. Albert Ruesga, “What is Social Justice Philanthropy?” White Courtesy Telephone [blog], 26 November2010, http://postcards.typepad.com/white_telephone/2010/11/what-is-social-justice-philanthropy.html. See also Albert Ruesga, “What is Social Justice Philanthropy?” Alliance (December2010), http://www.alliancemagazine.org/en/content/what-social-justice-philanthropy.

20. Kristi Kimball and Malka Kopell, “Letting Go,” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Spring 2011), p.37, http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/letting_go.

21. Gara LaMarche, “Reclaiming the Moral Life of Philanthropy,” Momentum (San Francisco, CA: TidesFoundation, July 2012), http://momentum.tides.org/reclaiming-the-moral-life-of-philanthropy/.

22. Paul M. Connolly, “The Best of the Humanistic and Technocratic: Why the Most Effective Work inPhilanthropy Requires a Balance,” The Foundation Review, vol. 3, nos. 1-2 (2011), http://www.tcc-grp.com/pdfs/Connolly_The_Best.pdf.

23. LaMarche, op. cit.24. Paul Brest, “A Decade of Outcome-Oriented Philanthropy,” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Spring

2012), http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/a_decade_of_outcome_oriented_philanthropy. 25. Brest and Harvey, op. cit26. Seventeenth-century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote much the same of bringing

together justice and power: “We must then combine justice and might, and for this end make what isjust strong, or what is strong just.” See Pensees (1958 [1669]),http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm.

27. Langston, op. cit., pp. 36-37.28. Sidford, op. cit., p. 14. 29. Hansen, op. cit., p. 33.30. Ibid.31. Langston, op. cit., pp. 17-18.32. Welner and Farley, op. cit., p. 11.33. Emmett D. Carson, “On Foundations and Public Policy: Why the Words Don't Match the Behavior,“

in David F. Arons (ed.), Power in Policy: A Funder's Guide to Advocacy and Civic Participation (SaintPaul, MN.: Fieldstone Alliance, 2007), p. 14.

34. Lisa Ranghelli, Leveraging Limited Dollars: How Grantmakers Achieve Tangible Results by FundingPolicy and Community Engagement (Washington, D.C.: National Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy, 2012), http://ncrp.org/files/publications/LeveragingLimitedDollars.pdf.

35. Randi Weingarten, “Schools and Communities: Stronger Together,” Huffington Post (18 May 2012),http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randi-weingarten/schools-and-communities-s_b_1529035.html?ref=impact&ir=Impact.

36. Cathy J. Bradley et al., Lessons for Coverage Expansion: A Virginia Primary Care Program for theUninsured Reduced Utilization and Cut Costs, vol. 31, no. 2 (February 2012), pp. 350-359.

37. Sidford, op. cit., p. 18.38. James S. Catterall Susan A. Dumais, and Gillian Hampden-Thompson, The Arts and Achievement in

At-Risk Youth: Findings from Four Longitudinal Studies (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment forthe Arts, March 2012), http://www.nea.gov/research/arts-at-risk-youth.pdf.

39. Ranghelli, op. cit.40. Hansen, op. cit., p. 23.41. Patricia Patrizi and Elizabeth Heid Thompson, “Beyond the Veneer of Strategic Philanthropy,” The

Foundation Review, vol. 2, no. 3 (2011), pp. 52-60, http://evaluationroundtable.org/documents/BeyondtheVeneerofStrategicPhilanthropy.pdf.

42. http://www.funderscommittee.org/files/boldertogether.california.civic_.participation.funders.pdf. 43. Interview with Niki Jagpal, March 18, 2011.44. Hansen, op. cit, p. 29.45. Ibid, pp. 22-23.46. Langston, op. cit., p. 39-40.47. Cynthia Gibson and Geri Mannion, “Private Foundations: Encouraging Support for Advocacy,” in

David F. Arons (ed.), Power in Policy: A Funder's Guide to Advocacy and Civic Participation (SaintPaul, MN.: Fieldstone Alliance, 2007), p. 149.

17


48. Niki Jagpal and Kevin Laskowski, The State of General Operating Support (Washington, D.C.:National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2012), http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/PhilanthropicLandscape-StateofGeneralOperatingSupport.pdf.

49. Niki Jagpal and Kevin Laskowski, The State of Multi-Year Funding (Washington, D.C.: NationalCommittee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2012),http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/PhilanthropicLandscape-StateofMultiYearFunding-Revised.pdf.

50. Data Center and National Organizers Alliance, Sustaining Organizing: A Survey of OrganizationsDuring the Economic Downturn (Oakland, CA.: Data Center, June 2010),http://www.datacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SOS-report.pdf.

51. J McCray, Is Grantmaking Getting Smarter? A National Study of Philanthropic Practice (Washington,D.C.: Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, 2012),http://docs.geofunders.org/?filename=2011_geo_field_study_final.pdf.

52. Sidford, op cit., p. 28.

A Philanthropy at Its Best® Report

REAL RESULTSWhy Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice Philanthropy© January 2013, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

The last several years have seen a shift in philanthropy: an emphasis on maximizing impact has grantmakers

aiming to be more organized, focused and, perhaps above all, “strategic” in their efforts. While this admirable

shift has made philanthropy more effective, our society and the nonprofit sector continue to confront

significant disparities. Philanthropy contributes a fraction of the needed monies to ameliorate great socio-

economic inequities, but grantmakers have an opportunity to maximize the impact of their dollars by adding a

“social justice lens” when developing their strategies. Based on NCRP’s High Impact Strategies for

Philanthropy (HISP) series of reports for issue-specific funders, this report posits that what is missing from the

current technocratic practice of strategic philanthropy is justice. At their best, strategic philanthropy and social

justice philanthropy are the same. Drawing on lessons learned from the HISP reports on arts and culture,

education, the environment and health care, Real Results suggests that prioritizing and including underserved

communities and support of community organizing – approaches long understood by social justice

philanthropy – are important, even essential, components of successful philanthropic strategy regardless of

issue focus. This report is written with the hope that philanthropy will consider the “social justice lens” with

better outcomes for the entire nonprofit sector and the communities we seek to serve.

For information or copies of this report, or to join NCRP, please contact us at:1331 H Street NW, Suite 200 • Washington D.C. 20005

Phone 202.387.9177 • Fax 202.332.5084 • E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.ncrp.org

REAL RESULTS Why Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice Philanthropy

Documents

Transcript of REAL RESULTS Why Strategic Philanthropy is Social Justice Philanthropy