How Foundations Could Solve Social Problems

Despite the infusion of $5.3-trillion over the past 35 years into programs designed to help the poor, conditions in America’s inner cities continue to deteriorate. Violence and despair — clear signs of a nation in moral and spiritual crisis — are now expanding to our suburban and rural communities as well.

To deal with America’s current crisis, philanthropy cannot afford to apply the bankrupt strategies of the past. As grant makers seek to refocus their efforts so that their contributions will have the greatest influence, they must elevate their thinking beyond the long-running policy debate between the political left, which defines progress in terms of the amount of money spent on professionally designed programs parachuted into distressed neighborhoods, and the right, which believes that we have only to open the doors of opportunity to the free-enterprise system and let meritocracy run its course.

Instead, grant makers need to ask themselves these questions: Who are the true experts of social revitalization? What principles should guide decisions about which programs to support? What qualities are common to all effective programs? What measures of success should recipients meet to qualify for continued support?

In neighborhoods across the nation, grassroots groups have dealt successfully with gang violence, substance abuse, teen-age pregnancy, homelessness, and a myriad of other problems that have been resistant to conventional therapies. Those groups — generally small, enterprising, and non-bureaucratic — have proved time and time again that they can engender substantial and lasting transformations at only a fraction of the cost of traditional, “credentialed” programs.

Yet grassroots groups have received only a tiny percentage of grant makers’ support, largely because the civil-rights establishment, the poverty industry, and their political allies refuse to relinquish their position as custodians of the poor and their “ownership” of the problems of poverty. If grant makers truly are interested in identifying and supporting effective remedies to our nation’s most serious social problems, they must be willing to remove their blindfolds of bias against untutored but practical and experienced sources of wisdom. And they must be ready to embrace strategies that work — no matter where they are found.

The most effective strategies are forged by people in the very neighborhoods that are the most troubled. Unlike most “professionals,” the great majority of successful grassroots leaders have personally experienced, and overcome, the problems they help others to confront.

Individuals who have won the battle against drug addiction, teen-age fathers who now inspire young men to take responsibility for their children, and former gang members who urge youths to turn away from violence have proved to be both empathetic counselors and role models who have been able to engender remarkable internal transformations among those they serve. In an era of moral disarray, they are a source of both spiritual and economic renewal whose influence can extend far beyond the boundaries of their neighborhoods.

The true experts of lasting community revitalization share these characteristics, and these attitudes toward those they serve:

Their programs predate outside support. Indigenous community efforts usually begin as a spontaneous response to an emergency situation in the neighborhood in which the leaders invest their own money, time, and energy before seeking outside funds. What’s more, grassroots efforts usually continue after a grant’s expira tion.

They live in the same zip code. Because effective leaders are available around the clock, not just from 9 to 5, they have the trust and respect of those they serve. And as part of the community, they understand the character, values, and traditions of the people with whom they work.

Their goal is self-sufficiency and independence. Effective grassroots leaders do not create lifetime clients, nor do they profit from their clients’ dependency.

Outreach is not a program but a vocation. True community leaders have a lifelong commitment to turning people’s lives around. They are in it for the long haul.

They treat clients as family. Effective leaders see those they work with as brothers and sisters, not as business clients. Their commitment to the well-being of those they serve is long-lasting and heartfelt.

They recognize the centrality of religious faith. Because effective leaders view most social problems as, essentially, spiritual and moral ones, they know that restoring people’s lives requires more than material support. Thus, their methodology is fundamentally different from that of conventional, professional programs. Community-based drug-abuse programs, for example, seldom use alternative drugs, medication, or psychotherapy in their efforts. Instead, grassroots strategies focus on engendering an internal transformation of values and vision that will, ultimately, produce a change in behav ior.

Race is not a stumbling block. Effective leaders do not approach problems through prisms of race or ethnicity, and their outreach extends beyond boundaries of race, ethnicity, or income level.

They require reciprocity. Effective leaders recognize that people who are constantly on the receiving end, who have never been given the opportunity to reciprocate, will in due time despise not only the gift but also the giver. Therefore, they always require and demand a return on their investment from the people they help. They know that passive recipients make “good clients” but poor citizens.

In their attempts to reform failed social-service pro grams, many foundations have failed to seek those qualities in service providers and have pursued a new strategy: collaboration. Such an approach encourages different groups to work together to come up with solutions to problems. But because such efforts often use the same conventional service providers with the same unproductive top-down philosophies, they also can only have a minimal effect.

Collaborative effort, no doubt, is needed, but it should focus on supporting indigenous service providers who have a track record of success in dealing with their neighborhoods’ problems.

One way grant makers can do that is to provide training to leaders of effective grassroots organizations so that they can develop long-range plans and write grant proposals. Another way is to adjust the grant-application process itself. Thousands of grassroots organizations would benefit from the institution of small grants that could be awarded on the basis of a group’s success in the past and the testimony of people it has helped, rather than on lengthy, sophisticated, and complex proposals.

When resources and support are given to “social entrepreneurs” who have the vision, creativity, and commitment to forge innovative, workable solutions to social problems, each donation will create ripples of benefits for years, if not for generations, to come.

Grant makers must have the courage and vision to recognize the inadequacy of conventional philanthropic practices and to embrace a new paradigm of social investments. If they do, they have the opportunity to be at the forefront of a movement that truly has the potential to deal effectively with the problems that so deeply trouble our society.

Robert L. Woodson, Sr., is president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, in Washington, and the author of The Triumphs of Joseph: How Today’s Community Healers Are Reclaiming Our Streets and Neighborhoods (Free Press). This piece is adapted from a speech he gave last month at the seventh annual Corporate Community Involvement Conference, in Baltimore.