March 12, 1998 | Read Time: 4 minutes
In recent years, mainstream foundations have come under increased scrutiny on a wide set of issues, from the inflexibility of their grant making to their limited accountability. Although the criticisms come from across the political spectrum, people generally are more familiar with those from the right, partly because they have tended to be more strident, persistent, and ideological than those from the left.
Even if one disagrees with the criticism from the right, however, at least it is consistent with the conservatives’ view of what constitutes a better and more productive society: smaller government, untethered capitalism, an emphasis on traditional values, policies that aren’t based on race, and increased volunteerism.
That does not seem to be the case with the left.
In a recent issue of The Nation, for example, Michael H. Shuman, former director of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, complains that mainstream foundations are not supporting progressive think tanks and research institutes that could match the intellectual vigor of those on the right. Instead, he claims, foundations are dissipating their money by giving it to thousands of disparate grassroots organizations.
How brazen — and inconsistent with the progressive vision — can one be?
There is, no doubt, a need for additional funds for progressive think tanks. But critics on the left should take care to make a distinction between those think tanks that, by their practices, share the progressive vision and those that do not.
At the heart of progressivism is a vision of an America that is non-elitist, where people of all races and nationalities can participate in the processes of democracy and be treated equally, and where the poor have the resources to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.
While a few of the progressive think tanks — including the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Applied Research Center — are connected to the grassroots, many others are not. Instead, they tend to be elitist, with ideas emanating from the top down. They have few ties to local non-profit groups and little direct contact with poor, working, and middle-class citizens, whose interests they purportedly serve.
More serious is Mr. Shuman’s claim that mainstream and liberal foundations have squandered vast amounts of money on thousands of grassroots groups.
Contrary to Mr. Shuman’s view, community organizations that serve the poor have received a very thin slice of the philanthropic pie. Only a handful of mainstream foundations have been willing to underwrite groups for their organizing, public-policy, and advocacy activities, let alone provide them with general support for their operations. Individual donors have an even worse track record of giving to organizations that help low-income people and of supporting grassroots advocacy efforts.
As government decision making shifts from the federal to the state and local levels, grassroots organizations should receive more support for their efforts, not less. Not only are grassroots groups well connected to the needs of their constituents, but historically they have also been the most effective in improving people’s lives.
Perhaps Mr. Shuman and other critics on the left have forgotten that the Community Reinvestment Act — which has done more than any other piece of legislation to bring renewed investment and credit to poor neighborhoods — was the direct product of a national grassroots campaign? Or that the same can be said of many of the victories posted by consumers and environmentalists over the past two decades?
In the end, the achievement of the progressive vision will depend more on the success of such organizations than on whether a think tank can generate more ideas, research, books, and conferences.
To be sure, some of Mr. Shuman’s observations are on the mark. He faults the large, liberal foundations for their support only of those programs that fit within narrowly defined categories, for their fear of being viewed as partisan or political, and for their reluctance to give long-term or general support to non-profit organizations. It is surprising, however, that he takes the Public Welfare Foundation to task in this area. Few, if any, large foundations have provided more money for advocacy work and general support than has the Washington philanthropy.
Mr. Shuman concludes by saying that most foundations do not realize their weaknesses because grant recipients are too afraid to “rock the boat” or “nibble on the hand that feeds.” But that is not entirely fair. Some progressive non-profit organizations have taken money from philanthropic sources and criticized them without having caused irreparable damage to their institutions — which is more than I can say for many so-called progressive think tanks.
Mr. Shuman calls for an honest dialogue between grant makers and grant recipients, something that is long overdue. What is equally in demand — and in very short supply — is a strong dose of courage and candor by all non-profit organizations, whatever their ideology.
Pablo Eisenberg, executive director of the Center for Community Change and co-chair of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, is a regular contributor to these pages.
