Conservative Foundations Promote Ideas More Effectively, Report Says

Politically conservative foundations are more effective than their liberal or moderate counterparts at promoting their ideologies, says a new report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a liberal organization in Washington that seeks to hold foundations accountable to the public.

The report examined the work of 79 foundations it identified as having a conservative grant-making agenda, such as promoting states’ rights or the deregulation of government rules that apply to businesses.

From 1999 to 2001, the foundations provided $252-million to support more than 350 nonprofit groups that work to push public policy to the right on the political spectrum, says the report. “We cannot applaud the political ideas these conservative foundations promote, but the successes of these foundations are remarkable,” said Rick Cohen, executive director of the committee.

According to the report, “successes” include grants to support think tanks that have helped shape the Bush administration’s tax policy and national-defense strategy, among other things.

While the amount given away for conservative causes by the 79 foundations is a fraction of what the 65,000 grant makers nationwide dole out annually — estimated to be $30.5-billion in 2001 alone — conservative foundations have spent their dollars more effectively than funds of other political leanings, the report says. For example, the foundations provide more money in the form of unrestricted grants, which pay for rent, salaries, and other general costs, than do other foundations, the report says. This type of grant making has helped conservative advocacy groups respond quickly to current events and issues, the report says. Liberal or moderate grant makers often provide funds for specific programs, rather than operating costs, Mr. Cohen said.

What’s more, conservative groups are more aggressive in their partisan grant making, the report says. Unlike most foundations, it says, the 79 funds make more grants to “nonprofits that will actively lobby lawmakers, challenge laws and regulations in the courts, and broadcast conservative ideas.”

William A. Schambra, director of the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, a conservative think tank in Washington, agreed with the report’s finding that conservative grant makers have been more effective than liberal or moderate foundations. But the success has less to do with their approach to grant making than the “common vision” shared by right-leaning nonprofit leaders, a clarity of purpose other foundation heads lack, he said.

Mr. Schambra disagreed with the report’s portrayal of conservative funds as a tightly knit network with deep political connections. “It doesn’t matter if you sit on the same boards or not, that’s just silly. There’s just a common understanding of what it takes to establish a liberal democracy that preserves prosperity and defends itself in a dangerous world. That’s what makes the funding fall into place,” he said.

Dana V. Shelley, a spokeswoman at the Annie E. Casey Foundation — a Baltimore fund that considers itself nonpartisan, though it has been labeled a liberal organization by observers — questioned the report’s findings as well.

Casey has been as successful at promoting the causes it supports, such as social programs for poor families, as the conservative groups have with their own agenda, she said.

“The success of our grantees speaks for itself,” she said.

The committee’s report, “Axis of Ideology: Conservative Foundations and Public Policy,” is available free at http://www.ncrp.org; paper copies may be obtained from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 620, Washington, D.C. 20009; (202) 387-9177; fax (202) 332-5084.