Foundation Support of Activism Is a Good Investment

A new report that documents the dollar benefits that advocacy groups provide to society should put to rest much of the anxiety that foundations have had about supporting activist nonprofit activities.

At a time when the drop in endowment values has prodded foundations to look more carefully than ever at the way they spend money, the findings demonstrate that a greater investment in advocacy work will help foundations make every dollar go further. A tiny fraction of all foundation spending today goes to advocacy activities.

The study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, conducted and written by Lisa Ranghelli with help from other staff members of the organization, documents extraordinary accomplishments by 14 New Mexico groups from 2003 through 2007.

The report demonstrates that it is possible to measure the difference made by advocacy campaigns and other efforts to mobilize citizens to influence public policies.

The study’s findings are striking: It says that for every one of the $16.6-million the organization invested in advocacy work, New Mexico’s citizens received $157 in benefits. Now that is true bang for the buck.

For years, most foundations have shied away from supporting activist causes and organizations. The rationale for this reluctance has varied.

Some foundations like to cite the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which added new restrictions on grant making. Foundations worry that financing activism could prompt lawmakers and regulators to go further in restricting foundation activities or taking other steps that could undermine the independence of philanthropic institutions.

Other foundations say that such grant making is too risky, and too removed from the interests of their trustees. Yet others believe organizing and advocacy activities cannot be controlled or held accountable by foundation supporters.

And many have argued that at a time when foundations are increasingly focusing on the effectiveness of their grants, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the value of public-policy and advocacy efforts, particularly over time.

The New Mexico study seriously undermines that contention.

Moreover, it reveals a broad range of nonprofit, largely grass-roots organizations that have accomplished enormous public-policy successes with the support of government officials, community leaders, coalitions of nonprofit groups, and people who are typically left on the sidelines, especially those who are needy or are minority-group members. It also shows how a few foundations that were willing to go against the grain and support advocacy made a difference.

By working within the democratic process, the New Mexico advocacy groups have demonstrated what can be done responsibly to widen the channels of civic participation, open leadership opportunities to those previously left out of the system, and bring increased benefits to the public at large as well as to constituencies at risk. This is in the good old-fashioned American tradition. So what have foundations been afraid of?

The report also documents that ordinary people can do extraordinary things.

Among them:

• In 2003, the New Mexico Acequia Association, which represents 25,000 rural families, won a major victory by gaining the state’s endorsement of the right of historic community irrigation systems, called acequias, to have control over water transfers and allocations in their communities, an asset valued at almost $5-billion
• Somos un Pueblo Unido, an immigrant-led community organization, has built a membership of more than 1,600 people to protect and fight for immigrant rights. Somos was responsible for legislation that allows undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state tuition and obtain state financial aid, benefiting at least 500 students.
• Somos was also a major player in the campaign that resulted in a living-wage ordinance in Santa Fe. The successful work of the living-wage coalitions in Santa Fe and Albuquerque helped a total of 71,000 workers gain higher wages, amounting to $250-million over five years.
• New Mexico Voices for Children is an organization that has made an enormous difference in reducing child poverty and improving the health and well-being of children and their families in the state. Its activities have included securing increases in state programs to provide help paying the energy bills of the poor and to assist the poor in weatherizing their homes, as well as increasing Medicaid benefits by $800-million from 2003 to 2007, and helping expand the amount the state spends for health centers in local schools to $3-million a year.

The report found that foundation support was crucial to the organizing and advocacy activities of the 14 organizations in the study.

Five of the organizations spent their entire budgets on such efforts, while another three spent more than half of their budgets on such efforts. Foundation support was responsible for 33 percent to 95 percent of these organizations’ budget. Corporate support was insignificant. It is clear that without foundation assistance the impact of the 14 groups would have been, if not minimal, much less compelling.

As one might have expected, in their interviews with the researchers, the New Mexico groups stressed the importance of general operating support. They also cited the need for multiyear support. Only six of the organizations said they had received multiyear grants.

What is surprising is that the bulk of the money provided to 12 of the 14 groups came from national foundations.

No more than eight of New Mexico’s 234 foundations gave the organizations any money. That does not reflect well on New Mexico’s foundations.

Perhaps the state’s grant makers will muster some wisdom and courage to support the advocacy and organizing efforts that have had such an astonishing impact on the state. And foundations elsewhere should learn the lessons cited in the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s report: Spending money on activism can be measured; it can be safe; and for every dollar spent, the return on investment is substantial.

Pablo Eisenberg, a regular contributor to these pages, is a senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. His e-mail address is pseisenberg@verizon.net.