Before I begin, I would like to offer my thanks to Gene Tempel, Dwight Burlingame, Les Lenkowsky and Patrick Rooney, among others, for inviting me to visit you here at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy—what is the nation’s flagship center on research for our field. It really is a genuine pleasure to be here, to see old friend and to enjoy the physical and intellectual energy that students bring to ideas

This Center has produced and continues to produce key research about the nature, scale and diversity of giving in our country. Just a few months ago when senior Ford Foundation staff met with a high-level delegation from the Chinese government that is drafting new laws on NGOs and foundations in that country, we used data produced from this university to explain the topography of the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors in the U.S. Staff of some key Congressional committees frequently turn to the data published by this institution that then influence the regulatory arrangements that result. The empirical base of some arguments about nonprofit and foundation accountability is built, at least in part, from the intellectual contributions of those of you affiliated with this Center.

I also applaud your initiative to reach out and establish relationships with leaders of newer philanthropy centers like Giuiliana Gemelli at the University of Bologna and Barbara Ibrahim at the American University of Cairo. There is great potential benefit for all concerned in such networks.

This afternoon I would like to talk about an important social role that organized philanthropy—foundations—could and should play in our society but where, in my judgment, we fall short. I would also like to propose a challenge to the Center for how it might consider its role in helping the field improve its work.

What's the issue?

As you know, there are approximately 70,000 foundations in the U.S. Since the mid-1980s, despite a turndown in the economy in recent years, we have watched assets of foundations grow enormously in the last 20 years. That’s great. I support the idea (as does Ford) that foundations have the possibility of great flexibility and are the potential source of social, economic and cultural innovation. Many—in fact the vast majority of—foundations fund the delivery of services in some form. In some instances those services mean the difference between life and death—or safety and danger. In other cases, those services provide the chance for a more enjoyable life. That is a key role for foundations in any society. The central question is what percentage of philanthropic resources underwrite service delivery relative to those that fund work that alters the conditions—some structural, some in practice— that create the need for those life-saving services in the first instance? The record on this question is poor in my judgment. The percentages are skewed.

The Foundation Center (the institution that collects and analyzes foundation grantmaking data in the U.S) shows a continually low level of funding for its category public affairs/society benefit which includes civil rights & social action, philanthropy & volunteerism, public affairs, and community improvement & development. Aggregate funding for this category remained unchanged through 2003. In spite of radically reduced U.S. social, civil and legal protection programs and crushing deficits in federal and state budgets that might have provided such assistance, the Foundation Center reports, “…community improvement and development showed the largest decrease in funding. Contributing to this loss was reduced funding for citizen coalitions, urban/community development projects, and rural development…Civil rights and social action was the smallest subcategory by share of grant dollars.” In its newest report, Social Justice Grantmaking, it points out that funding in this category “grew more slowly than overall giving”—therefore the share of grant dollars targeting social justice dropped over time.

But surely, in the absence of a strong role of government protection and assistance for the vulnerable, with such a wealthy foundation community in the U.S. and such pressing social, civil and economic problems, foundations must instead be assisting marginalized and oppressed groups. Sadly the reality does not support such a hope. In the face of the language one reads in many foundation annual reports and websites that suggests strong support for communities faced with a variety of injustices, the Foundation Center reports that even though overall spending by foundations was down by 10 percent in 2003, “Funding for the economically disadvantaged dropped 19 percent…Support for ethnic and racial minorities decreased 11 percent in 2003…All but two population groups experienced a decline in funding, [including funding for] gays and lesbians (down by 31 percent).”

According to the Foundation Center, “health” and “environment” are the two areas that enjoyed the fastest growth in funding in the 1990s. However, one of the only two categories where health-related funding dropped was for reproductive health which has consistently declined by 19 percent since 2000—and disproportionately affects low income women of color. Funding for international affairs, development and peace—something that affects all of us—receives three-fifths of its funding from only 10 foundations. Recall, there are approximately 70,000 foundations in the U.S.

Let me be completely clear. The point here is not to criticize funding for services. I support the idea that foundations fund services. The point is not to neglect funding work that deals with structures that cause or perpetuate injustice. For example, where I part with Rob Reich in his article last year in Stanford Innovations, is that he equates foundations funding direct services for the poor with eradicating poverty. I do not. That sort of funding is certainly helpful but it is temporary and will never be sufficient because it ignores the reasons why so many people live in poverty.

There is a saying in Yiddish, “If three people tell you that you are drunk; sit down.” In other words, despite what we might consider as reality, it is useful to consider seriously a pattern of information from others that suggests that things may not be as they seem. How many more times will the Foundation Center release such data until the foundation community acknowledges the reality of how little it funds critical, strategic work on racial, economic, gender and civil justice? Let me offer some of the work at the Ford Foundation that is a modest attempt, in collaboration with several other funders, to expand philanthropy that addresses the structural injustices that block or restrain outcomes of:

the achievement of universal rights across the population,

the absence of discrimination in access to jobs, housing, services, education, and other economic, social and political opportunities

the promotion of peace and reconciliation

The Ford Foundation and its partners have adopted three strategies to attempt to build a movement among grantmakers in support of funding peace and social justice work:

1. Increasing the supply of resources by expanding the pool of funders who support work on structural injustices.

Here we try to identify potential peace and justice funders and link them to the training and networks they need Neighborhood Funders Group (family foundations); Liberty Hill Foundation (donor education);

In other instances we may help create new foundations—for example, TrustAfrica; Dalit Fund; Arab Human Rights Fund

2. Strengthening and connecting current social justice funders.

We all work better when we share ideas and link with like-minded foundations.

Ford supports capacity-building and endowment support for: the Ms. Foundation for Women; Global Fund for Women; Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues; Rye Collaborative; Peace Funders Network (initially including foundations from Sri Lanka, the Balkans, Israel/Palestine, India and Colombia); Community Foundation for Northern Ireland

At a recent meeting in London, approximately 15 U.K. trusts and foundations met to explore how they might improve their work to support justice and social inclusion in that country (led by the Barrow-Cadbury Trust).

A group of European and U.S. foundations are discussing how best and appropriately to assist in fragile states where security and development are critical issues—often life and death--that are frequently left without the attention they deserve (based at the Fundacion FRIDE in Madrid).

The International Initiative to Strengthen Philanthropy (IISP)--A group of almost 20 foundations from North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South Asia with support from the Ford Foundation --are working together as a learning group over the next 2-3 years on institutional development as well as exploring ways to improve impact on economic, racial, gender and other human rights issues (this group includes the Brazil Human Rights Fund, African Women’s Development Fund, New Israel Fund and the Arab Human Rights Fund)

3. Legitimizing this approach to the field by developing a stronger analytic capacity & literature on philanthropy and social justice.

The Foundation Center/IS benchmark study on social justice grantmaking.

A project on Philanthropy for Social Justice in Muslim Societies (sites include: Indonesia, Turkey, India, Egypt, Tanzania, and the UK). Book by year’s end.

A book by the Center for Community Change that will provide examples of effective analysis/grantmaking strategies that address structural injustices.

A writers series of philanthropy for social justice

Centers for philanthropy and social justice—Cairo (AUC), the University College Cork (Ireland) and Indonesia (UIN)—with no current U.S. counterpart

These examples offer promise of positive outcomes, but the question remains about why, with so many foundations, with so much money and such great need, why so few are working for the elimination of the structures and practices that drive injustice? For some foundations, the mission of their institution is to support the provision of badly needed services. As I have said, this is clearly a legitimate function of philanthropy in any society. This role of philanthropy as the source of support for services not provided by the public sector or the market is an important and fundamental task of a philanthropic sector. The problem is that because the overwhelming number of foundations fund in this way, and because so few support structural social change and movement-building, the need for services increases at a pace with which philanthropy can never keep up. The solution is not for foundations to replace the state in its role of assisting vulnerable citizens, but for foundations to aid groups in ways that strengthen their ability to pressure the state to be responsive to their needs and to protect their rights.

So what about funding structural change? Let’s be frank. For some foundations, the leadership is timid about appearing too “political” and prefers “safer” kinds of funding. For other foundations there is genuine desire for change but the leadership may not have the analysis or strategies in place to make grants for such work. There is little common understanding and almost no rigorous literature and training in the field of philanthropy regarding how to effect social change in this way. Where can one study to learn a structural analysis of social, economic and other problems, and then receive training about the most effective strategic grantmaking interventions—and how to factor scale? The road to universal justice is not paved with good intentions alone.

What does foundation grantmaking that addresses structural injustices actually look like?

In a meeting some time ago in Brussels with several European foundations, I was involved in a discussion about some foundations’ interest in supporting “economic justice in Africa.”

The conclusion was that if, as many foundations do, one ends up supporting a set of village-based micro-finance projects, then that is good for the villages. A social/economic justice funder, however, would consider supporting European and African (and U.S.) groups working to change the trade agreements between the EU and Africa (and the U.S. and Africa) because those agreements structure economic inequality and represent vastly larger resources that foundations could ever offer, and so increases the scale involved.

Some months ago in Cairo, I was deeply moved to see the enormous outpouring of support—across age, income levels, and religions—for the Cairo Children’s Cancer Hospital. But that hospital will need to grow enormously if no foundation supports groups fighting for environmental regulations and enforcement to keep heavy metals and other toxins from giving the children cancer in the first place.

The majority of funding by foundations for “social change” leaves existing structures and power relations that permit or benefit from injustice unquestioned and untouched. Many foundations use language that suggests a much deeper engagement than actually occurs. For example, too often in philanthropy, work is described as being targeted at strengthening civil society or fostering community-based activity, or increasing social capital, or enhancing indigenous decision-making, or ensuring more effective nonprofits, or building capacity of the nonprofit infrastructure. While all of the above could be laudable goals, none of them on their face necessarily challenge unjust structures or confront power, though they are often conflated with doing so. Typical funding in these categories—by no means all, but certainly most—actually can serve to legitimate a kind of engagement with civil society groups that are unwilling to name and then take on the structured injustices of that society.

Foundations must undertake a different approach to their work than most currently do. First, it requires careful analysis of the problem, its causes (including the structural arrangements or practices) and the development of a funding plan that includes identifying key strategic interventions that deserve support, determining the most effective kind and level of engagement, and might in some instances include support for the several, key elements of a mobilization strategy. Beyond the critical analysis, foundations need to consider support for a variety of capacities including: organizing and base-building at several levels, vision/message development and dissemination, strengthening and linking key institutions, policy and budget analysis, and training and leadership development. Apart from direct support for partisan politics which in most countries is illegal, foundations can—if they choose—fund virtually all of these activities.

Some of the ways that foundations can help build a strong movement for rights and justice include:

Core support for operations as well as capacity-building and organizational development of key institutions. This means capacity-building for social justice nonprofits—but of a kind that leads to the development of an infrastructure for economic, social and political justice, not just “effective” individual nonprofits without power;

Creation of new networks or alliances among social justice groups—especially those that can bridge identity and single-issue agendas (e.g., link environmental justice with sexual/reproductive and racial justice and health efforts);

Find and support groups that strategically link local problems/action with global structures (e.g., state fiscal/budget analysis at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ International Budget Project, or the impact of global trade on national sovereignty at the Forum on Democracy and Trade);

Support media and communication efforts to craft and deliver well-framed and effective messages regarding the support of fair, equitable and democratic practices and conditions—to offer a positive vision of what could be;

Fund economic development that increases the socio-economic opportunities of disadvantaged populations, with special attention to macro-structures;

Support peace and reconciliation programs that seek to understand and address the causes of conflict and that deal sensitively with the variety of victims in reconciliation efforts;

Support the protection of the legal rights of those who are marginalized in society and action to ensure statutory and practical protections and fair, universal enforcement

Funding transparency and accountability mechanisms in all areas of power—local, sub-national, national, regional, and global.

As Gandhi challenged us to be the change that we wish in the world, foundations can also choose to develop a strategy to use their own assets to support movement building through careful screening of investments and strategic use of proxy voting as shareholders.

Some examples of the ways that researchers could help with work on justice and fairness include:

Experiment with efforts to link demand and supply in ways that are mutually respectful and effective—how university research can help organizations working on structural or other injustice. (Network of University-based centers vs. affinity groups)

Undertake research to show what approaches to nonprofit management (i.e., administration, management, finances, program design, resource mobilization, etc.) would differ—and how they would differ—for justice-focused organizations (as opposed to generic “effective management practices” taught at most nonprofit centers). (Shatil, Dalit Fund, & Center for Community Change have expressed interest).

Develop a curriculum and teach courses based on the findings above.

Review and analyze a large set of foundation grants and identify those that are particularly effective at supporting work on structural injustice. Develop training materials based on the findings.

Study the success of groups such as Scope in Los Angeles to create successful local, cross-issue and cross-identity coalitions against a variety of injustices. What are the key and minimal capacities? What are the most effective roles for foundations to play? What is the most effective way(s) to increase scale? How should they best link to statewide efforts? Other local efforts?

Undertake comparative research of effective social movements for justice (e.g., Shack/Slum Dwellers International, landmines campaign, etc.) and identify the key elements of their success. Take these findings and compare U.S. “movements” (women’s rights, racial justice, etc.) to them to see what capacities are lacking and where foundations might most effectively intervene.

Foundations have a large menu of actions from which to select and colleague foundations from whom to seek help if they choose to support structural change for justice and peace. But that information is not readily available. Foundation leaders can direct the work of their institutions, if they choose, to fund activities that are more likely to bring justice, democratic voice, fairness, and peace to the communities that they serve. They need help in the form of examples of useful structural analyses applied by others, examples of creative grantmaking strategies, select critical analysis of current practices, and training opportunities to learn about all of these.

So, to paraphrase the Yiddish proverb, if three people say that your foundation is not funding rights and justice; stand up and take a hard look. Or if three people say that your research agenda does not add to the field’s ability to support deep structural change for justice; stand up and ask how it can.

Thanks very much.