Two different items came across my desk that I want to let GrantWatch readers know about.
Shaping Policy
The first is “Beyond Grantmaking; Health Foundations as Policy Change Agents,” by Eileen Salinsky of Grantmakers In Health (GIH) (the professional association of foundations and corporate-giving programs that fund in health).
In this March 2015 document, part of GIH’s Tracking the Field series, Salinsky reports that in recent years, GIH “has received numerous anecdotal reports of health funders engaging more directly in advocacy and other policy change strategies,” rather than just awarding grants to further their policy-related goals.
This short publication, funded by the Missouri Foundation for Health, scans the health philanthropy field to see why and how funders are using resources other than grants to both inform and influence policy decisions. Lessons learned are included.
Salinsky notes that the report stems from interviews with twenty funders that were already “highly engaged” in policy and advocacy work and are not meant to be broadly representative of the universe of health funders. Confidential interviews were conducted between May 2014 and January 2015.
All respondents reported that they directly engage in activities to inform and influence, as well as make grants. Efforts directed toward “influencers” (including news media representatives, advocates, and the business community) were the most prevalent, followed by efforts to attract the attention of “decisionmakers” (including elected officials and staffers at government agencies).
For example, those funders wanting to reach influencers allow “designated” staffers to do on-the-record interviews with journalists. Several other examples are listed.
The funders wanting to target policy “decisionmakers” more often focus on executive branch personnel than legislators, Salinsky said. Examples of activities include conducting and disseminating policy-relevant analyses, participating in public commissions and advisory panels, and providing expert testimony at legislative hearings (this is more commonly done by statewide funders).
Salinsky includes a helpful “sidebar” delineating the differences between private foundations, “which are prohibited from lobbying by federal law”; public charities, which “are allowed to lobby within certain limits”; and social welfare organizations, which “face no limits on lobbying expenditures.” She notes that entities classified as public charities or social welfare organizations make up about half of the funders participating in this “scan,” although they do not account for such a high proportion of the GIH membership. Salinsky observes that this “likely reflects the fact that some private foundations are wary of engaging in legally permissible policy activities due to misperceptions of, and overly cautious legal counsel regarding, the nature and scope of lobbying prohibitions.”
Other sections of the report cover why respondent funders directly engage in policy, what “structural supports” they have (for example, most of the funders interviewed have at least one policy staff person), and the “challenges and unintended consequences” that have occurred (only two issues were included in this section, one of which was “perception of political bias”).
Finally, Salinsky lists several lessons learned from the interviewees. Among the recommendations was “be willing to take risks.” She comments, “While displaying a healthy tolerance for risk, the foundations included in the scan were by no means reckless and urged other funders to seek well-informed legal counsel.” I suppose this suggests that foundations should make sure they are adhering to the tax laws.
Too Little Oversight?
Then on May 30, the New York Times opinion section published “Who Will Watch the Charities?” by David Callahan, founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy (described as a news website for the philanthropy sector). Right up front, Callahan says, “Philanthropy, we’re learning, is a world with too much secrecy and too little oversight.” He notes that “foundations don’t have to prove that they’re making good use of billions of dollars of tax-subsidized funds.”
In this commentary about both foundations and charities, Callahan mentions the Clinton Foundation by name a few times—I suppose, since it has been in the news recently, and Democrat Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race.
Callahan acknowledges that “philanthropy still does enormous good.” But the sector needs more scrutiny, he maintains.
He makes several recommendations. For example, he argues that groups that try to influence public policy, “or are led by former public officials, should disclose where their money is coming from.” (As a philanthropy reporter, I say “amen” to that. Some groups do not like to reveal what foundations fund them, and so I rarely mention such groups in what I write.)
Callahan believes that “foundations and other philanthropic funds” should pay out their tax-exempt dollars at a quicker rate. He notes that (private) foundations are legally obliged to give out only 5 percent of their endowments each year.
He calls for a better accounting and assessment “of whether philanthropic dollars are effectively spent.”
Specifically, Callahan suggests “strong watchdogs” to monitor philanthropy and nonprofits. A new federal bureau would be a good idea, he says, and state law enforcement officials need to enforce the state laws already on the books.
No comments:
Post a Comment