This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
BLUEPRINT RESEARCH + DESIGN, INC.
Building Fields for Policy Change
2 0 1 0
This paper was published with the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
research + design for philanthropy
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. helps grantmaking foundations, individual and family donors, and philanthropic networks achieve their missions. We offer services in strategy and program design, organizational learning, and evaluation, and we think and write about the industry of philanthropy. Since 2004, Blueprint has provided the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation with research, advice, and documentation of the Digital Media and Learning Initiative. That work includes the writing and distribution of five reports on field building, written for the public, as a means of informing the field of philanthropy and as a way to strengthen the emerging field of Digital Media and Learning.
The MacArthur Foundation’s Digital Media and Learning Initiative aims to determine how digital media are changing the way young people learn, play, socialize, and participate in civic life. Answers are critical to education and other social institutions that must meet the needs of this and future generations. Through November 2009, the foundation has awarded 106 grants for a total of $61.5 million to organizations and individuals in support of digital media and learning. The grants have supported research, development of innovative technologies, and new learning environments for youth — including a school based on game design principles.
Building Fields for Policy Change
From America’s neighborhoods to the capitals of the world, philanthropy is a major force in public policy, flexing its financial and intellectual muscles with those who determine the rules by which society lives. This expansive role for philanthropy naturally raises questions: How does philanthropy best engage policymakers? In what other ways does philanthropy influence policy? To whom is philanthropy accountable in this regard? How does public policy work fit within the larger philanthropic agenda?1 -Kathy Postel Kretman, Director, Center for Public & Nonprofit Leadership, Georgetown University
Philanthropic foundations exist as a function of public policy.They are regulated entities, overseen by elements of corporate, tax, and charity codes. Public policy guidelines, ranging from international laws to municipal codes, also shape the issues on which foundations work, such as education, health, the environment, human rights, or the media. Clearly, the power of public policy to guide philanthropic choices and directions, and even to shape the tools that foundations use in their work, is substantial. However, the public policy milieu in which philanthropy works and social goods are produced is not simply background; it is itself a powerful tool for achieving change. American foundations have engaged directly in shaping public policy — or working with intermediaries, institutions, and networks of organizations to do so — almost from the beginning.The Rockefeller Foundation’s work in providing public health services, training public health providers, and ultimately influencing individual states and the nation as a whole to address widespread diseases
began within a decade of its founding in 1913.2 Examples of policymaking initiatives range across disciplines from economic research to arts education, and from the international level to the local, state, and national level.3 While the policymaking efforts of foundations are well documented, the focus of this paper is on a key characteristic that this policy work shares with the more recent philanthropic interest in field building. Field building and successful policy change both require that foundations act across The power of public policy to entire ecosystems of guide philanthropic choices and directions is substantial. change, where the work of grantees mutually reinforces and strengthens the impact of one another.4 The decades of success in influencing policy domains holds useful lessons for the more emergent interest in field building as strategy. Because field building and policymaking work so well to support each other, this paper’s specific focus is the intersection of these two spheres of influence. It will detail the shared characteristics
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 1
of these strategies and explain how they can be mutually accelerating. We consider the following key questions:
How can the resources of a foundation and a field be used most effectively to implement policy strategies? What tools and best practices exist for funders interested in analyzing and strengthening fields?
Our approach is to use examples that demonstrate how foundation-supported field-building efforts have advanced a policy strategy. We highlight several cases from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Wallace Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts. We also draw on insights from our work with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in their Digital Media and Learning Initiative.
WHAT DOES FIELD BUILDING HAVE TO DO WITH POLICY?
In attempts to shape policy, field building plays a distinctive role. Many ambitious policy-change efforts require effective collaboration across large, diverse groups of actors.6 Field-building strategies can be helpful in supporting these kinds of efforts. Elements of field building, from organizing grassroots activity among grantees to solidifying key stakeholders around a common policy agenda, are useful at different points throughout the policymaking cycle. In our review, we identified five funder initiatives that exemplify the practice of field building to advance policy change (see sidebar). These examples provide a detailed view of how to strengthen policy initiatives through efficient and effective collaboration. They also illustrate a broader theme: how funders can improve the success of their policy strategies by considering some of the core elements of field building. At the end of this report, we provide an overview of the tools, resources, and best practices in field building and policy change.
At its core, field building is one of many possible philanthropic strategies, similar to (albeit more comprehensive than) supporting academic research, offering prizes for innovation, and building nonprofit capacity. Field building inherently involves the consideration of an entire ecosystem of organizations and often emphasizes work at the intersections of organizations. As we discussed in the first paper of this series, “Building to Last: Field Building as Philanthropic Strategy,” foundations engage in field building for a variety of reasons, from seeking attention and legitimacy for a certain issue to reducing inefficiencies and duplicative activities.5
RECOGNIZING AND ANTICIPATING POLICY OPPORTUNITIES: Listening to the Field of Digital Media and Learning
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation has been a major funder of educational efforts in Chicago and across the United States for decades. The foundation also prides itself on using empirical evidence to support its funding strategies. As the foundation began to observe, explore, and consider the changes in the educational landscape that seemed to be driven by digital media, it made sense that its starting
2 Building Fields for Policy Change
EXAMPLES OF FIELD BUILDING FOR POLICY CHANGE
There are many examples of foundations building and strengthening fields to bring about policy change. A full list of those we have found is in the Appendix. This paper will draw primarily from the following five efforts to illustrate the principles of field building in supporting policy:
• Digital Media and Learning — Officially launched in 2006, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation’s Digital Media and Learning Initiative has sought to understand and act on the ways digital technologies are changing the way young people learn, play, socialize, and participate in civic life.
• Out-of-School Time Nonprofits — Building on its long legacy of support for out-of-school time
(OST) learning opportunities, the Wallace Foundation is developing and testing ways in which “cities can plan and implement strategies that increase overall participation in high-quality OST programs.”7
• Supporting Partnerships to Assure Ready Kids (SPARK) — An initiative of the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation, SPARK works to “create a seamless transition into school for vulnerable children ages 3 to 6.”8
• Tobacco Control — The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has worked on issues of tobacco
control since the early 1990s. Current efforts focus on “strengthening and expanding policy changes that have been shown to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use, including higher tobacco prices, comprehensive clean indoor air policies, and the coverage and use of treatments to help tobacco users stop smoking.”9
• Environmental Policy — The Pew Environment Group, the conservation arm of the Pew Charitable
Trusts, aims to “strengthen environmental policies and practices in ways that produce significant and measurable protection for both terrestrial and marine systems worldwide”10 by funding scientific research and advancing policy solutions.
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 3
place was careful research on these changes. From this research-oriented starting point, the foundation staff began to look for concrete answers to several questions: How are digital media changing the learning process? How are digital media changing where students learn? How do institutions of learning need to change to be effective in a digital world? Eventually, these three questions would come to form the basis of the MacArthur Foundation’s Digital Media and Learning Initiative, but in the earliest days of the Digital media and learning touches — and is touched by — many work, the first question policy domains. was the driving force. The foundation funded what would become landmark research at the University of Southern California and the University of California at Berkeley to shed light on this question of how digital media were affecting learning.11 Even as the academic research was underway, the rapidity of change in the digital environment was shaping the foundation’s thinking. It soon realized that the digital forces of online content, broadband access, new types of content production, and young people’s easy fluency with new technologies was going to require the foundation to move much more quickly than it might otherwise have done. Rather than rolling out grants and building partnerships slowly and over time as research findings came in, the foundation recognized the need to consider the entire ecosystem of youth, institutions, and learning environments simulta-
neously. Thus it adopted the field-building strategy, with its ability to engage across sectors and incorporate research, new institutions, and new learning environments. And that broad engagement quickly revealed the next truth: because digital media and learning draws from academia, commercial vendors, schools, and nonprofit learning institutions, the most effective philanthropic strategy would be one that could draw on all these domains — both commercial and nonprofit — to help shape policy. Digital media and learning touches — and is touched by — many policy domains, ranging from school funding streams to intellectual property law and from teacher credentialing requirements to video game rating systems and FCC regulation of media ownership. The first step for the foundation would be to map the many domains and their intersections with the various actors in the field. This work has been done by staff within the foundation, by consultants using network analysis tools, and by surveying grantees about the policy challenges they face. The foundation regularly brings groups of its grantees together, and policy opportunities are frequently discussed at these gatherings. The annual grantee meeting includes a conversation about policy barriers, changes, and concerns. The network map of grantees — which is regularly updated — includes policy frames and policy interactions in its data. To date, the foundation’s policy mapping exercises have been focused as much on sharing infor-
4 Building Fields for Policy Change
mation with grantees, generating expertise from within the network, and building relationships across the field — in other words, field building — as they have been on identifying policy opportunities. In this regard, the foundation is acting on the assumption that the wisdom of its network is greater than its own institutional knowledge. The foundation is also learning what works best, given the multiple policy domains and perspectives within the field. As noted in GrantCraft’s guide to funders and advocacy efforts:
POLICY DOMAINS IN DIGITAL MEDIA AND LEARNING
This illustrative, though certainly not exhaustive, list gives a sense of the diversity of policy domains at play in the field of digital media and learning.
• Telecommunications policies, such as net
neutrality, that regulate equitable access to digital content on all networks
• Educational policies, including K-12
Some grant makers fund advocacy, some are advocates themselves. Many do both. The choice of whether a grant maker directly promotes an approach to public issues or funds others to do so depends on several considerations (including) whether the grant maker or the grantee has a better knowledge of the substantive issues, the public policy process, and the means of influencing public decisions. (Most grant makers said their own experience pales in comparison with that of their grantees.)13
curriculum and testing standards, that determine school district priorities, constraints, and curriculum opportunities
• Copyright law and intellectual property
policies of different institutions, which affect how content and tools can be shared
• Credentialing policies and requirements
for different professions, which help to identify leverage points for new ways of teaching and learning
• Open-access and licensing options for
At this stage in building the field of digital media and learning, the MacArthur Foundation has integrated the issue of enabling or restricting policy into its approach. In this way, it brings value beyond the funds it contributes to the network by informing and connecting grantees to those with similar policy concerns. It is also continually learning from its network so that it can be ready to act on policy issues when the time is right. The question of timing is an important one.
content, game development, and university participants
• Media rating systems and other con-
sumer-oriented guidelines and protections regarding appropriate media use
• Broadcast, cable, and internet connectiv-
ity policies that constitute barriers or conduits to access
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 5
Research on social movements and policy change shows that movements “have their greatest effect in the early stages of policy debate on a given issue, before the debate becomes too broad and acrimonious and before cause supporters become too outspoken.”14 For example, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) movement, an unsuccessful effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to promote Alliances built around one policy issue may come together later legal equality for women, around others. passed in 35 states until public opinion started to shift against the movement after pro-ERA women’s groups were perceived as extreme. Another advantage of weaving the policy issues into the work early on is that alliances built around one policy issue may come together later around others.15 Such a broad range of policy domains is both a blessing and a curse: on one hand, there are ample opportunities for leverage; on the other, there are many disparate stakeholders who may or may not share perspectives and goals.
Case Study Questions
STRENGTHENING INTERMEDIARIES: Providing Resources for Collaboration for Out-Of-School Time Nonprofits
The Wallace Foundation’s involvement in the Out-of-School Time (OST) sector began with the Making the Most of Out-of-School Time initiative, a $9.3 million project funded by the DeWitt Wallace–Reader’s Digest Foundation in 1993. As part of the initiative, the foundation supported organizations that provide school-age care; that is, “organized activities for children ages 5 to 14 that occur during the non-school hours” including “before-school programs, summer programs, sports leagues, (and) tutoring and mentoring programs,” among others.16 After the DeWitt Wallace–Reader’s Digest Fund and the Lila Wallace–Reader’s Digest Fund merged in 2003, the focus on out-of-school time nonprofits continued as one of three major program areas of the Wallace Foundation. Current activities include demonstration projects in five cities as well as local, state, and national policy efforts. From the beginning, the Wallace Foundation has recognized that OST nonprofits reside in a complex system of public agencies, school systems, and local communities. OST groups are not only beholden to the interests of the children and families they serve but must work closely with principals and schools in sharing physical resources and information. They are funded, licensed, and regulated by city and state agencies and work in the context of other nonprofits, including other OST groups that share similar interests but also compete for the same pools of funding.
Policy stakeholders can be broken down into many categories: by age, race, class, sector, and so on. What types of mapping categories are most useful in your work? Maps of actors are, by nature, dynamic and evolving. What different ways are there for communicating with constituents in real-time maps of policy change and policy actors?
6 Building Fields for Policy Change
Despite common ground and intersecting activities, the OST sector continues to face challenges in working with other groups and advancing public policy. For example, in working with school leadership, perceived competition for scarce public and philanthropic resources creates tension at the school level. Lucy Friedman, president of the After-School Corporation succinctly points out, “If principals think they’re making a choice between test prep delivered by teachers, or pick-up basketball and finger-painting, is there any question as to how educational leaders will invest their funds?”17 These issues, coupled with staffing challenges and difficulties in communicating the value of successful partnerships to school leaders and public officials,18 have created
major hurdles for OST advocates in their attempts to foster collaboration and bring about policy change. As a result, there has been a “growing recognition of the need for OST nonprofits to look beyond their own programs, to work with each other, with schools, with health organizations, and with other community-based and public agencies to create an array of accessible, developmentally appropriate, and effective after-school and summer learning choices for all children throughout the day and year, particularly those who are economically or otherwise disadvantaged.”19 Indeed, in their white paper commissioned by the Wallace Foundation, Heather B. Weiss and Priscilla M. D.
TABLE 1. DEFINING A NETWORK MINDSET
Organization Orientation Mindset Strategy for Impact Typical Behaviors Competition Grow the organization Compete for scarce resources Protect knowledge Develop competitive advantage Hoard talented leadership Act alone Seize credit and power Structure Centralized (siloed)
Network Orientation Collaboration Grow the OST sector Increase the funding pie for all Share knowledge Develop skills of competitors Cultivate and disperse leadership Act collectively Share credit and power Decentralized (matrixed)
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 7
Little of the Harvard Family Research Project identified seven organizational challenges for the OST nonprofit sector, including the need to create and maintain internal and external networks and to better integrate policy and advocacy with direct service.21 Weiss and Little observe that in order to shift the sector toward more effective outcomes, organizations need to change their orientation from an organization orientation to a network orientation. Adapting a framework championed in Forces for Good:The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits,22 Weiss and Little suggest that funders can help the sector become more network- and policyoriented by funding joint grant proposals, convening grantees, providing leadership training, and encouraging the integration of direct service with advocacy.23 They also point to the power of cultivating adaptive leaders committed to advancing a larger policy agenda24 and to capacity-building innovation funds that reward collaboration and partnerships.25 The Wallace Foundation has invested significant resources in strengthening the underlying infrastructure of the OST sector in these ways, in large part by supporting intermediaries. The foundation has supported groups from the Department ofYouth and Community Development in New York City to the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation. Coordinating entities like the Providence After-School Alliance (PASA) are also charged with planning and gathering data to inform decisions by city leaders. As the experience of some intermediaries suggest, “the intermediary structure is, in itself, an essential
step in changing public policy to aid the formation of an out-of-school time system — one that advances the interests of public and private stakeholders including youth, parents, communities, and schools; that accounts consistently for the quality and effectiveness of its services; and that makes the most of the diversity, adaptability, and responsiveness of local provider organizations and programs.”26
Case Study Questions
What are the key organizational capacity issues in your sector? How could strengthening organizational capacity enable organizations to better influence policy? What role do intermediaries play in your sector? How could their role in affecting policy change be expanded? What do stakeholders view as the key barriers to effective collaboration? Trust? Information? Time? How can the resources of a foundation be used to remove those barriers?
HOSTING FORUMS: Aligning Efforts and Fostering Dialogue in Linking Ready Kids to Ready Schools
In late March 2009, more than 200 educators, academics, community activists, and education advocates from thirty-five states came together for two days to develop policies to improve the alignment of early childhood education systems and formal schools.The forum, called “Linking Ready Kids to Ready Schools: Building Policy on State and Community Success,” was organized by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and cosponsored by
8 Building Fields for Policy Change
HOW INTERMEDIARIES ADD VALUE TO THE OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME FIELD 27
Brokering relationships. Intermediaries can draw service providers, funders, policymakers, schools, and other stakeholders into functioning alliances around issues of common concern. Intermediaries’ firsthand experience with the needs and interests of the various players gives them an advantage in building trust, finding common ground, and working out effective solutions to problems that cut across many kinds of organizations and levels of operation. Convening local organizations. Because of its diversity and history of bottom-up growth, the after-school field is highly fragmented and dispersed in most cities. By maintaining steady working alliances with large numbers of local providers in their communities, intermediaries have the ability to draw a wide range of organizations into collegial, collaborative networks. In so doing, intermediaries facilitate the flow of information, methods of data collection and analysis, and common ideas and concerns. Rationalizing and expanding services. Intermediaries can enlist support from large public and private funders more efficiently than individual, often small, provider agencies seeking funding one-by-one. These resources in turn make possible a significantly greater scale of service, helping to expand the work of existing providers and drawing new organizations into the field. Increasing program quality. By raising and re-granting money from large funders, intermediaries can develop and promote consistent accountability mechanisms for recipients of these funds. Intermediaries thus help funders and providers manage resources for greatest results, connecting providers with highquality curricula and other quality improvement strategies. Strengthening and supporting the after-school workforce. Intermediaries often provide centralized training and professional-development opportunities for after-school workers, managers, and volunteers across the full range of local provider agencies. The result is an expanding network of well-trained adults delivering and managing services for young people citywide. Research and evaluation. Gathering, analyzing, and comparing performance and outcome data can be costly and technically demanding responsibilities that are often beyond the fiscal and technical ability of individual providers. Intermediaries can perform these tasks efficiently and with a degree of independence that is valuable to providers, funders, policymakers, schools, and parents. Promoting sustainability. The precariousness of many after-school funding streams calls for concerted attention not only to fundraising but to developing policies and systems that ensure a steadier, more reliable, and sustainable stream of resources to the field. This is an area in which intermediaries excel, for all the reasons described on this list of core functions.
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 9
national education associations, including the Education Commission of the States, Voices for America’s Children, the Children’s Leadership Council, and the Learning First Alliance. The forum was remarkable for bringing together for the first time national stakeholders focused on coordinating the efforts of early childhood education and elementary schools. It also was an extension of the Kellogg Foundation’s longstanding field-building efforts through SPARK (Supporting Partnerships to Assure Ready Kids), a five-year initiative that began in 2001 “to smooth the transition to school and to align early learning and elementary school systems for children from ages 3 to 6 who were vulnerable to poor achievement.”28 By funding partnerships of community leaders, service providers, business leaders, parents, policymakers, and preschool and K-12 educators, the foundation supported grantees that worked with multiple stakeholders.29 As the SPARK initiative progressed, the foundation recognized that statewide policy change would be critical to improving the link between ready kids and ready schools. As Gregory Taylor, vice president for programs at the Kellogg Foundation explained, “State policies can help districts, schools, and early care and education programs create linkages to align continuous systems of learning. But to establish a true continuum, they also have to create similarities across systems, provide interconnected services and reflect understanding and insight into the work as it is implemented on the ground in schools, districts and communities.”30
Using philanthropy’s power to convene, the foundation, in partnership with the Education Commission of the States, designed a series of high-visibility Governors’ Forums in 2008 in Arizona, Connecticut, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with the mandate to advance policies across the early learning and early grades systems at both the state and community levels. Each forum was designed to enable multiple stakeholders to share their experiences and to help attendees map out strategies for reform while also highlighting local efforts and successes as well as the need for more state action. Tangible outcomes from each forum included:
Identification of a specific mechanism through which the work to be accomplished will be sustained. Identification of a key group of stakeholders and the development of a unique process for engaging them. Adoption of a different set of steps to reach the transition policy goal. Identification of an outcome that can be accomplished within the existing state policy and political environment. 31
By providing an opportunity for dialogue on the state and national level, the foundation helped participants create new realities and move forward. For example, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland created an Early Childhood Cabinet to unite key state agencies around the common goal of promoting school readiness by setting and coordinating state policy and programs that serve children from the prenatal care stage through 6
10 Building Fields for Policy Change
THE GOVERNOR’S FORUMS 32
Each Governors’ Forum organized by the Kellogg Foundation and the Education Commission of the States focused on early education in different ways.
Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Connecticut and Pennsylvania shaped their individual forums around
issues of transition. Connecticut utilized the meeting to first inform a broad-based constituency of the importance and implications of assuring effective transitions from early learning environments to the early grades. It then focused on mobilizing a small group of key stakeholders and policymakers to explore ways to integrate the existing transition model used in the state into a larger statewide education policy agenda. Pennsylvania introduced the Transition Policy Framework and involved its community engagement teams and the K-12 community in a learning opportunity to understand each component (aligned standards, teacher preparation, and community engagement and action) as well as to provide feedback on the framework and to work together in teams to strategize ways to implement the framework at the school and community level.
Arizona. The forum in Arizona looked at efforts to create an aligned system of education from pre-
school to graduate school, also known as P-20. Rather than create a separate committee focused on “P” (preschool), the state sought to integrate the efforts of its newly created early childhood initiative, First Things First, in existing subcommittees of the P-20 Council. The forum was an opportunity for a small group from the P-20 Council, First Things First, and the K-12 community to work together to develop a strategic plan and clearly articulate the role of First Things First as the “P in P-20.”
Ohio. In Ohio, the forum focused on the role of schools and school leadership. The forum kicked off
a yearlong professional development partnership with the governor’s office, the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators (OAESA), the Ohio Department of Education, and the Partnership for Continued Learning Council (P-16) to create a network of ready schools across the state. To that end, the governor’s office awarded grants to elementary school principals to pilot a new Ready School Resource Guide developed by the Ohio Department of Education and SPARK Ohio. The forum was an opportunity to build support by convening a broad base of stakeholders to hear about ready schools and their impact on learning. In addition, multisector teams from each of the pilot sites came together for the first time at the forum. With technical assistance from a group of state and national content experts, teams began to develop their ready schools implementation plans.
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 11
years of age.33 In Pennsylvania, the Office of Child Development and Early Learning is strengthening the state’s infrastructure to support the link between preschool learning and the early grades.34 And at the national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation in September 2009 creating the Early Learning Challenge Fund, an $8 billion initiative to raise the quality of early learning and care programs.35 A similar bill has been proposed in the Senate.
Case Study Questions
Policy change involves multiple stakeholders. In order to change policy in your field, which stakeholders need to be involved? Continuing the conversation after an event can be challenging. In order to facilitate discussion and create the next steps, what support can foundations provide?
turned its attention to policy research, approving a two-year $5 million grant in 1992 to establish the Tobacco Policy Research Evaluation Program (TPREP). Through TPREP, the foundation quickly learned valuable information, including how the price of cigarettes affected consumption and whether tobacco met the legal definition of a drug, influencing its strategy for curtailing the use of tobacco. But in order to translate this research into action, the foundation needed a way of engaging policymakers across the United States with this information. It decided to support coalitions of tobacco-control organizations and authorized a $10 million grant to establish the SmokeLess States program. A coalition, at its most basic level, is a group of organizations with a common purpose and identity. Nonprofits and funders often join coalitions to increase credibility, maximize resources, and share ideas.37 In the context of policy work, they also join forces to raise awareness about specific issues, leverage shared resources for common policy objectives, and coordinate their individual efforts. With the SmokeLess States program, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation wanted to “effectively translate policy research into policy change by awarding grants to coalitions of nongovernmental organizations that would educate the public and policymakers about the tobacco problem and potential ways to address it.”38 Working with the American Medical Association — the organization chosen to manage the coalition’s operations, including administration of grants and technical assistance to grantees — the foundation provided two-year capacity-building
FUNDING COALITIONS: Sharing Knowledge and Coordinating Activity in Tobacco Control
Successful policy efforts result in the passage of new laws or the revision of existing ones. This is what happened in New Jersey when cigarette taxes were raised three times in six years as part of an effort to reduce smoking. In fact, from 1994 to 2004, tobacco control laws were passed in more than thirty states due in part to the leadership of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which has contributed more than $420 million to reduce tobacco use in the United States since 1991.36 When the foundation decided to focus on tobacco control as one of its key priorities, it first
12 Building Fields for Policy Change
FIVE LESSONS FROM THE SMOKELESS STATES PROGRAM
The program officers at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who oversaw the SmokeLess States program offered some reflections on what they would have done differently in managing the program:39
1. Diversify Funding Sources: The program relied on three voluntary health organizations — the
American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association — to provide financial support, especially for any lobbying activities that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, as a private foundation, was legally unable to support. However, in the economic downturn of 2000– 2001, the ability of the organizations to support the coalitions declined dramatically. More local fundraising and greater technical assistance from the foundation for fundraising might have helped stabilize the financial footing of some coalitions.
2. Diversify Coalition Members: Although many state coalitions believed the effort to include other
stakeholders was too resource- and time-intensive, greater diversification of organizations for the purpose of more widely representing state populations is, in the program officers’ view, critical if the work is to continue.
3. Identify Clear Benchmarks to Measure Progress: Benchmarks allowed grantees and coalition
organizers to work together to make adjustments along the way. Although measuring coalition performance against benchmarks met with strong opposition, especially among those who had not been previously monitored in such a manner, utilizing benchmarks and offering technical support to help coalitions meet them improved the performance of the coalitions.
4. Encourage Advocacy Grantmaking: Advocacy, an important and highly effective grantmaking tool,
is underutilized. It requires astute legal assistance and strong leadership, but more could be done by the foundation to encourage its adoption internally and within the field.
5. Recognize Grantees: The foundation celebrated state coalition achievements annually in the state
that had experienced the greatest policy victory in the previous year. In hindsight, celebrating achievements more than once a year might have proven beneficial.
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 13
grants and four-year implementation grants to an initial set of nineteen state coalitions. Each coalition worked on state policy issues while having access to the national program’s resources. In Wisconsin, for example, one of the focal points of the coalition’s effort was on garnering public support for raising excise taxes. Taxes were raised from 49 cents to 59 cents per pack in 199740 and then to 77 cents in 2001.41 Each coalition retained individual autonomy and set up its own policy priorities, media campaigns, and coalition structures while bringing together local organizations that shared an interest in tobacco prevention, including state agencies, nonprofit groups, and businesses, as well as individuals. The success of these programs clearly demonstrates how funders can utilize coalitions to enable organizations to work toward a common policy agenda.
Case Study Questions
BECOMING A PUBLIC CHARITY: Operating Programs, Matching Grants, and Lobbying for the Environment
In January 2004, the Pew Charitable Trusts, then one of the nation’s ten largest private foundations, became a public charity. While some critics of the move raised concerns over whether it was in the public interest,42 Pew officials said the conversion from a private foundation to a public charity would enable it to better pursue its philanthropic goals. “It will give us greater flexibility in our operations, as well as economies of scale that we could not achieve as a private foundation,” said Rebecca W. Rimel, the president and chief executive of Pew.43 The fundamental distinction between a grantmaking institution operated as a private foundation and one operated as a public charity is a legal one. Grantmakers organized as either can still make grants to individuals and organizations, convene the community around specific issues, and support advocacy efforts, but the regulations about those activities differ depending on the organizational form. Essentially, a public charity — which is viewed as having greater public
Policy change takes a long time and can require multiple strategies. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s successful work with coalitions in the states built on decades of earlier work.What is a realistic time frame for change in the policies that matter in your work? Coalitions require significant participation by member organizations. How can a foundation’s resources be used to ensure sufficient participation? Coalitions often are implemented as part of a multi-site strategy.What is the most effective way to share information and resources among different sites?
14 Building Fields for Policy Change
accountability by virtue of its form — also has greater freedom to operate than a private foundation. For example, while private foundations are barred from lobbying, either directly or indirectly through their grantees, public charities can engage in and fund lobbying activities within certain restrictions. Public charities also are allowed to raise funds from individuals, enjoy special tax benefits, and can operate programs within the organization. As long as a grantmaking institution meets the “public support test” — an IRS standard requiring public charities to receive a certain percentage of their total support from public sources — it can be organized as a public charity. 44 The distinction on the facing page is outlined in the chart.45 Since becoming a public charity, Pew has been able to take advantage of its status in order to pursue a variety of initiatives in ways that would not have been possible as a private foundation. In the months after its reclassification, Pew combined seven policy-research groups, including the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Internet & American Life Project, into the Pew Research Center. In the past, Pew funded each group separately through intermediaries like the Tides Foundation and Georgetown University, but as a public charity, Pew can directly manage the centers and move them to a single location.46 Additionally, Pew can now attract philanthropic support from other donors; at the latest count, Pew had more than 250 donors representing over $300 million in capital.47 The impact of Pew’s conversion to a public charity on its policy objectives is most clearly
illustrated by the Pew Environment Group, the conservation arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Although the Pew Environment Group has been promoting marine conservation, wilderness protection, and solutions to global warming for more than fifteen years, its strategies for policy change have expanded since 2004. For example, the Pew Environment Group, in partnership with the Philanthropic Services and Government Relations division of the Pew Charitable Trusts, has helped design, implement, A public charity has greater freedom to operate than a private and manage the Lenfest foundation. Ocean Program, a project custom-designed for the Lenfest Foundation that supports marine research to inform policy decisions. As a private foundation, Pew could have worked in partnership with the Lenfest Foundation. As a public charity, Pew manages the foundation’s money directly, shares the expertise of the trusts’ staff, and operates the program for the Lenfest Foundation in a more focused way. Key milestones of the program so far include the passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of a bill tightening a “fins-attached” shark fishing policy (the Lenfest Ocean Program was the only nongovernmental organization asked to provide congressional testimony on the subject) and a ban by the state of Oregon on the commercial harvest of bull kelp, an effort for which the Lenfest program provided critical research. 48 As a public charity, Pew addresses the policy process more freely, with initiatives like the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining, which seeks
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 15
to change the way in which federal lands are used by mining companies, and the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency, which works for more stringent fuel efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and trucks. Furthermore, with the ability to maintain campaigns directly, Pew can now consider mergers and acquisitions in addition to traditional “investments” in nonprofits. The Pew Environment Group, when considering how to increase its personnel and staff capacities in the areas of communication and media, government affairs, and field operations, weighed two options: to hire the people it needed individually or to bring under its umbrella an organization that could fill those same needs. Having funded and worked with the National Environmental Trust (NET) since 1994, the Pew Environment Group absorbed the organization’s staff and operations in January 2008. “Given that NET contained the human infrastructure that we needed, that it had effectively served as a campaign arm of Pew for many years, that by design it had worked primarily in the areas in which our work was focused and that we had had a close and extremely productive working relationship for more than a decade, this became a relatively easy choice. Quite simply, incorporating NET into the Pew Environment Group was far more practical, cost-effective and efficient than re-creating it internally,” said Joshua S. Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment Group. 49
foundations are in a position to manage relationships with stakeholders differently. What could be different about the way relationships and partnerships are managed in your work?
What knowledge or expertise does your organization have that could enable others to be more effective in their giving?
TOOLS, TECHNIQUES, AND BEST PRACTICES FOR FIELD BUILDING IN EFFECTING POLICY CHANGE
Each of the preceding examples shares one common factor: the policy efforts are led by multiple organizations, often coming from very different perspectives. The foundations were deliberately involved in field-level efforts to create change. These strategies involve strengthening teamwork, building partnerships, and including entire ecosystems in the planning process. Understanding change through a network-centric view is essential to leveraging limited philanthropic dollars. The tools for understanding and evaluating networks are undergoing an innovation explosion. As both the conceptual and digital tools for networks become more widely available, funders will be more able to incorporate network-centered principles into their work, from strategic planning and developing theories of change to grantmaking and evaluation. In this section, we provide some thoughts on how funders can use network tools to understand the fields in which they operate and frame their field-building choices in the context of policy change.
Case Study Questions
Few private foundations are in a position to convert into a public charity;50 however, all
16 Building Fields for Policy Change
Mapping The Field
Identifying the relevant stakeholders for a particular issue is a critical step that, if done incorrectly, can prove disastrous to a policy effort. As the opponents of Proposition 8, the amendment to California’s constitution to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman, reflect on what was considered a shocking loss in the November 2008 election, many observers have come to see the failure as fundamentally one of missed alliances and poor outreach.51 Knowing who the stakeholders are, knowing the opposition, and understanding where allies can be found is essential to success. What was needed was better analysis of the networks of supporters and opponents, and a strategy to reach across the divide. There are many different methods for mapping networks, from low-tech qualitative methods like Net-Map, an “interview-based mapping tool that helps people understand, visualize, discuss, and
improve situations in which many different actors influence outcomes,”53 to high-tech quantitative methods that measure variables like network reach, betweenness, and closeness.54 NodeXL,55 a free Excel 2007 plug-in, is a good tool for mapping networks. It can track which funders and organizations operate in a particular arena, as well as patterns of information flow, communication, and trust within a network. For insight on how to analyze networks and apply that knowledge to philanthropy, the Monitor Institute maintains an active blog on its Working Wikily website, and in July 2009 it published “Working Wikily 2.0,”56 a report that examines how networks are altering the landscape of social change. Other valuable resources include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation’s resources from its Philanthropy and Networks Exploration initiative57 and the Barr Foundation’s resources on networks.58
Strengthening Advocacy Capacity and Network Capacity
Not all nonprofits have the capacity to engage in policy advocacy. Spending time on policy requires staff time to devote to policy issues, resources for engaging constituents, the ability to develop policy solutions, and the connections to drive policy change. Nonetheless, funders can help grantee organizations overcome these challenges and others by strengthening their policy capacity. Understanding a nonprofit’s advocacy capacity helps funders understand whether an organization is ready to take on the responsibilities of advocacy and what is the best way to support the
An example of a Net-Map, a tool developed by Eva Shiffer
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 17
organization to build its capacity. The California Endowment and TCC Group recently published a framework for determining advocacy capacity. It uses the traditional guidelines for nonprofit capacity assessment to measure leadership, adaptive, management, and technical capacity in order to better determine how funders can improve an organization’s ability to create policy change. For example, looking at leadership capacity, the Understanding of the dynamics of networks and fields is still an authors state that advocacy emerging endeavor. leaders must “have the ability to understand how and when to motivate employees and outside stakeholders throughout the advocacy process” and “demonstrate an authentic personal and organizational commitment to advocacy.”59 Similarly, the Alliance for Justice has an online Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool that helps organizations identify key ways to strengthen their advocacy capacity.60 While these tools focus on capacity for advocacy and touch on the importance of nonprofits working with other groups, they do not focus on the field or the network as a whole. Understanding of the dynamics of networks and fields is still an emerging endeavor; however, the Irvine Foundation has funded a few reports on the topic, including one by the Bridgespan Group on “The Strong Field Framework,”61 which provides a way for funders to understand the current capacities of a field by measuring the dimensions of shared identity, standards of practice, knowledge base, leadership and grassroots support, and funding and supporting policy. Another report, by TCC Group, focuses on long-
term capacity-building initiatives, in which “a foundation directs support to a cohort of organizations over a defined time period to address specific capacity-building needs.”62 In the future, we expect many more funders and practitioners to develop and share their insights on techniques for strengthening the capacity of networks.
Supporting a field doesn’t always require intermediaries. The TCC report on long-term capacity building outlines some pros and cons of supporting intermediaries that need to be carefully weighed. Intermediaries can help funders monitor and support grantees and centralize communication regarding an initiative. However, while intermediaries provide additional human resources and help funders with lean staffs save time and money, they also increase a funder’s management oversight responsibilities and costs.63 The Foundation Center, as part of its Practice Matters series, has produced an extensive report called “Toward More Effective Use of Intermediaries” that focuses exclusively on “the use, misuse, and better use of intermediary organizations” and draws on the insights of more than seventy interviews with funders, intermediaries, grantees, and consultants. “Shaping the Future of After-School,” which we cited in our case study on the Wallace Foundation’s Out-of-School Time efforts, provides an additional in-depth look at the role of intermediaries in supporting the OST field.64
The Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest has identified six tips to keep in mind when building a coalition:65
18 Building Fields for Policy Change
Identify Purpose — Identify the purpose before you join or create an alliance with others. Include All Stakeholders — Make sure all relevant stakeholders of the issue are represented. Be sure to think beyond the “usual suspects.” Understand Limits — Understand the general limits and capacity of the member organizations and distribute responsibilities equitably. Create Bylaws — Create formal or informal bylaws to govern proceedings and decisionmaking. Communicate — Encourage open communication and healthy conflict. Make sure members can disagree without seeming to be obstructionist. Allocate Resources — Allocate resources for administrative tasks needed to run the coalition.
nesses; conferences help large groups of people share knowledge en masse, increase network connections, and develop a sense of the overall field while retreats are effective for developing strong connections within smaller groups. Conveners are experimenting with a variety of different types of engagement, from audience participation through the use of social media68 to new structures of information dissemination and interaction.69 For instance, the Social Capital Markets conference in San Francisco last year used a blog to communicate with conference attendees and posted Twitter tweets, blog posts, videos, and other announcements from those who attended.
Leveraging Digital Tools and Information
The Atlantic Philanthropies report entitled “Investing in Change: Why Supporting Advocacy Makes Sense for Foundations”66 and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s report “Engaging Coalitions to Improve Health and Health Care”67 also provide helpful context for understanding the lessons from philanthropy and coalitionbuilding.
One of the great opportunities for funders working to build coalitions and share knowledge is presented by digital media. Often, the knowledge of what others in the field are doing, the current state of a policy proposal, or the work of related entities is information that funders have access to and that their partners in the field readily need. All of the convening tips above can be enhanced by the appropriate use of digital communications technology. The operative word, however, is appropriate. Just because social networking technologies are prevalent and free doesn’t mean everyone is using them or wants to use them. It also doesn’t mean that everything that can be shared electronically should be. There are now many guidebooks and best-practice tools for using digital media to build movements and coalitions, strengthen communities, and create new ideas or propagate those that exist.
Although we focused on the use of forums in the context of the Kellogg Foundation’s Linking Ready Kids to Ready Schools initiative, there are many ways to convene and connect stakeholders. These include conferences, briefings, panel discussions, working groups, and regular retreats. Each type of event has its strengths and weak-
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 19
The two ends of the spectrum — sharing everything electronically with everyone or sharing nothing with anyone — are usually wrong directions. Knowing where to act in between depends on the characteristics of both your human and technology-enhanced networks.70 In addition to experiments with technology, have three key resources at their command: money, time, and some foundations are also information. reconsidering the copyright and product ownership policies in order to better connect grantees and facilitate their knowledge sharing. A 2009 study by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society looked at copyright rules used by foundations in regard to information developed by groups or projects they funded. The paper found that most of the perceived barriers to policy change could be overcome with little risk — and great potential for expanding the reach (and potential impact) of the funded work.71 This step has already been taken by some public funders, such as the National Institutes of Health, which now requires grantees to upload their funded and published findings in an openly accessible database called PubMed Central.72
Foundations and their partners
Philanthropic resources are limited, and they are often deployed for limited periods of time to catalyze or carry out significant changes that may occur well beyond those time periods. As a result, success often requires that activities or institutions receiving funds continue their work after the financial support ends. Policy change, in particular, can take a very long time. The philanthropic strategies outlined above — thoroughly mapping the field, strengthening advocacy capacity, supporting intermediaries, working through networks, and convening key stakeholders — are key elements in any successful field building and policy change effort. They can set the stage for success, create momentum, and put in place the connections and resilient forces to maintain work over time.These are all prerequisites for long-term change.
Foundations and their partners have three key resources at their command: money, time, and information. Unlike either money or time, many people can use information simultaneously. It can complement, extend, accelerate, and enhance the impact of either or both of the other two resources.This characteristic of information makes it a remarkable tool in any philanthropic strategy, from field building to policy change.
20 Building Fields for Policy Change
1 “Highlights of the Waldemar A. Nielsen Issue Forums in Philanthropy: The Role of Philanthropy in Shaping Public Policy” (Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Policy Institute, 2008–2009), http://cpnl.georgetown.edu /doc_pool/Nielsen%20Issue%20Forums%20in%20 Philanthropy%20Highlights%20Report.pdf. 2
9 “Tobacco: Overview and Strategy,” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation website, http://www.rwjf.org/pr/topic.jsp? topicid=1030&p=os. 10
“Pew Environment Group,” Pew Charitable Trusts publication, 7.
Karen Saucier Lundy and Sharyn Janes, Community Health Nursing: Caring for the Public’s Health, 2nd ed.. (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2009).
Mimi Ito et al., Hanging Out, Messing Around and Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming.) White paper online at http:// digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/report.
12 The “wiki” phenomenon is based on a belief that expert opinions are often flawed compared to the collective opinion of many. The key to tapping the wisdom of the crowd is diversity, independence, and decentralization. See James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 22.
Joel L. Fleishman, J. Scott Kohler, and Steven Schindler, Casebook for the Foundation: A Great American Secret (New York: PublicAffairs: 2007), 30–32. There have been several recent reports on the role of field building and networks, including “Building to Last: Field Building as Philanthropic Strategy” (San Francisco: Blueprint Research + Design, Inc., 2010), “The Strong Field Framework” (San Francisco: Bridgespan Group, June 2009), and “Working Wikily 2.0” (San Francisco: Monitor Institute, July 2009). “Building to Last: Field Building as Philanthropic Strategy” (San Francisco: Blueprint Research + Design, Inc., 2010). In a recent monograph on the topic of scaling nonprofit innovation, Nancy Roob of the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and Jeffrey Bradach of the Bridgespan Group suggest that funders, when trying to scale a program, should support fewer organizations with larger sums of money and “ensure that funding is given to those organizations that have real evidence they deliver on their promise.” Nancy Roob and Jeffrey L. Bradach, “Scaling What Works: Implications for Philanthropists, Policymakers, and Nonprofit Leaders,” (San Francisco: Bridgespan Group, April 2009), http://www.bridgespan.org/uploadedFiles/Homepage/ Articles/Scaling%20What%20Works%20-%20EMCFBridgespan%20April2009.pdf.
7 “Out-of-School Time Learning Grants & Programs,” Wallace Foundation website, http://www.wallacefoundation.org/GrantsPrograms/FocusAreasPrograms/Out-OfSchoolLearning/Pages/default.aspx. 8 SPARK: Overview,” W. K. Kellogg Foundation website, http://www.wkkf.org/default.aspx?tabid=75&CID=168&N ID=61&LanguageID=0. 6 5 4
“Advocacy Funding: The Philanthropy of Changing Minds,” Grantcraft website, http://www.grantcraft.org /index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=734 Meredith Alexander Kunz, “Professor Sarah Soule Explains Effective Social Movements,” Stanford Business Magazine website (Autumn 2009), http://www.gsb. stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0909/kn-effective-socialmovements.html?cmpid=main.
Robert Halpern, Julie Spielberger, and Sylvan Robb, “Making the Most of Out-of-School Time” (Wallace Foundation: New York, December 1998), 4, http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocumen ts/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/Making% 20the%20Most%20of%20Out-of-School%20Time.pdf. Lucy N. Friedman, “A View from the Field: Helping Community Organizations Meet Capacity Challenges” (New York: Wallace Foundation, March 2008), 17, http:// www.wallacefoundation.org/wallace/whitepaper_friedman.pdf.
Heather B. Weiss and Priscilla M.D. Little, “Strengthening Out-of-School Time Nonprofits: The Role of Foundations in Building Organizational Capacity” (New York: Wallace Foundation, May 2008), 2, http://www.wallacefoundation.org/ wallace/whitepaper_weiss.pdf.
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 21
Ibid., 15.. Ibid., 8.
22 Heather McLeod-Grant and Leslie Crutchfield, Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2007), 109. . 23 Ibid., 21. 24
Sam Dillon, “Initiative Focuses on Early Learning Programs,” New York Times, September 19, 2009, http: //www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/education/20child.html.
Ibid., 20. Ibid., 24.
“Karen K. Gerlach and Michelle A. Larkin, “The SmokeLess States Program,” in Steven L. Isaacs and David C. Colby, eds., To Improve Health and Health Care: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Anthology, vol. 8 (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2005), 1, http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/books/2005/chapter_02.pdf.
“Shaping the Future of After-School: The essential role of intermediaries in bringing quality after-school systems to scale,” Collaborative for Building After-School Systems (September 2007), 2, http://www.afterschoolsystems.org /files/1675_file_cbass_shape_future_2007.pdf.
“Working in Coalitions,” (Washington, DC: Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, 2007), 1, http://www. wkkf.org/advocacyhandbook/docs/07_coalitions.pdf.
“SmokeLess States Program,” 3. “SmokeLess States Program,”10–11.
“Supporting Partnerships to Assure Ready Kids,” Kellogg Foundation website (March 2009), 1, http://www. wkkf.org/DesktopModules/WKF.00_DmaSupport/View Doc.aspx?LanguageID=0&CID=168&ListID=28&ItemID= 5000608&fld=PDFFile.
29 “Linking Ready Kids to Ready Schools: A Report on Policy Insights from the Governors’ Forum Series,” Communications Consortium Media Center (2009), 4–5, http://www.wkkf.org/DesktopModules/WKF.00_DmaSupp ort/ViewDoc.aspx?LanguageID=0&CID=168&ListID=28& ItemID=5000607&fld=PDFFile. 30
“SmokeLess States National Tobacco Prevention and Control Program: Major Accomplishments and Highlights by State (1994–2000)” http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom /SLSAccomplishments00.pdf.
“SmokeLess States National Tobacco Prevention and Control Program: Major Accomplishments and Highlights by State (2001–2004)” http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom /SLSAccomplishments04.pdf.
Pablo Eisenberg, “Pew's Shift to Charity Status Goes Against What Is Best for the Public,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, (December 11, 2003), http://philanthropy.com/premium /articles/v16/i05/05003801.htm.
Ibid., 5. Stephanie Strom, “Pew Charitable Trusts Will Become Public Charity,” New York Times, (November 7, 2003), http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/us/pew-charitabletrusts-will-become-public-charity.html.
“Linking early learning and the early grades to assure that children are ready for school and schools are ready for children – a SPARK Legacy” (Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, August 2008), 20, http://www.wkkf.org /DesktopModules/WKF.00_DmaSupport/ViewDoc.aspx? LanguageID=0&CID=168&ListID=28&ItemID=5000542 &fld=PDFFile.
32 Adapted from “Linking early learning and the early grades to assure that children are ready for school and schools are ready for children – a SPARK Legacy,” 20–21. 33
Gene Takagi, “Public Support Tests – Public Charities,” Nonprofit Law Blog website (January 12, 2006), http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/home/2006/01/public _support_.html.
Jeff Trexler, “Q & A: Why are hospitals grouped with schools as public charities?” uncivilsociety.org website (December 2, 2007), http://uncivilsociety.org/2007/12 /q-a-why-are-hospitals-grouped.html.
22 Building Fields for Policy Change
46 Debra E. Blum, “Pew Combines Policy-Research Groups,” Chronicle of Philanthropy (April 27, 2004), http:// philanthropy.com/free/update/2004/04/2004042701.htm. 47 “Susan A. Magill on Philanthropic Services at Pew,” Pew Charitable Trusts website, http://www.pewtrusts.org /expert_qa_detail.aspx?id=48580.
documents/WorkingWikily2.0hires.pdf. “Philanthropy and Networks Exploration Links: Resources,” The David & Lucile Packard Foundation website, http://www.packard.org/genericDetails.aspx?RootCat ID=3&CategoryID=162&ItemID=3744&isFromModule=1. Resources: Networks,” Barr Foundation website, http://www.barrfoundation.org/resources/resources_list.htm ?attrib_id=9534. Jared Raynor, Peter York, and Shao-Chee Sim, “What Makes an Effective Advocacy Organization? A Framework for Determining Advocacy Capacity” (San Francisco: TCC Group, January 2009), 14, http://www.calendow.org /uploadedFiles/Publications/Policy/General/Effective Advocacy_FINAL.pdf. “Build Capacity & Measure Advocacy Efforts,” Alliance for Justice website, http://www.advocacyevaluation.org /?source=web_pf. “The Strong Field Framework” (San Francisco: The Bridgespan Group, 2009), http://www.irvine.org/images /stories/pdf/pubs/strongfieldframework.pdf. Paul M. Connolly, “Deeper Capacity Building for Greater Impact” (San Francisco: TCC Group, April 2007), 2, http://www.irvine.org/assets/pdf/pubs/philanthropy/LTCB _Paper_2007.pdf.
63 62 61 60 59 58 “ 57
“Pew Prospectus 2009,” (Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2009), 37, http://www.pewtrusts.org/ uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Static_Pages/About_ Us/PEW%20Prospectus%2020092.pdf.
49 “Deep Green,” Pew Charitable Trusts website, http:// www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=38586. 50 Two examples of other private foundations converting to public charities are the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Independence Community Foundation (which will be renamed the Brooklyn Community Foundation). See Debra E. Blum, “Big Change Afoot at Pew Trusts,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, November 6, 2003, http://philanthropy.com /free/update/2003/11/2003110601.htm, and Diane Cardwell, “A Brooklyn of Wealth and Needs Gets a Major Charity All Its Own” New York Times, September 28, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/nyregion/29 brooklyn.html. 51 “Prop. 8’s battle lessons,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials /la-ed-marriage11-2008nov11,0,3352846.story.
Massimo Menichinelli, “Net-map toolbox, a social network analysis tool for Community/Locality Systems projects,” Open Peer-to-Peer Design website, http://www. openp2pdesign.org/blog/archives/739.
53 Eva Schiffer, “About,” Net-Map Toolbox website, http://netmap.ifpriblog.org/about. 54 Valdis Krebs, “Social Network Analysis, A Brief Introduction,” Orgnet website, http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html.
64 “Shaping the Future of After-School” (New York: Collaborative for Building Afters-School Systems, September 2007), http://www.afterschoolsystems.org/files /1675_file_cbass_shape_future_2007.pdf.
“Working in Coalitions” (Washington, DC: Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, 2007), 2, http://www.clpi.org/images/pdf/07_coalitions.pdf. “Why Supporting Advocacy Makes Sense for Foundations” (New York: The Atlantic Philanthropies, May 2008), http://atlanticphilanthropies.org/content/download/5238/79869/file/ATLP_advocacy_report.pdf. Laura C. Leviton and Elaine F. Cassidy, “Engaging Coalitions to Improve Health and Health Care,” in Steven L. Isaacs and David C. Colby, eds., To Improve Health and
Marc Smith, “NodeXL: Network Overview, Discovery and Exploration for Excel,” NodeXL website, http://www.codeplex.com/NodeXL. Diana Scearce, Gabriel Kasper, and Heather McLeod Grant, “Working Wikily 2.0” (San Francisco: Monitor Institute, 2009), http://www.monitorinstitute.com/
Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 23
Health Care: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Anthology, vol. 10 (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2005), http://www.rwjf. org/files/research/anthology2007chapter10.pdf.
68 “SOCAP September 1st Daily Update,” Social Capital Markets website, http://www.socialcapitalmarkets.net /index.php?/component/option,com_wordpress/Itemid,64 /p,550. 69 “2009 IS/CMF Conference: Engaging Session Formats” Independent Sector website, http://www.independent sector.org/AnnualConference/2009/formats.html. 70 Good resources on these tools and their use in sharing information and building community can be found through NTEN (www.nten.org), from Beth Kanter, (www.beth. typepad.com), and from the online forums at TechSoup Global (www.techsoup.org). Each of these sources can also point you to issue- or technology-specific expertise. 71 Phil Malone, “An Evaluation of Private Foundation Copyright Licensing Policies, Practices and Opportunities” (Cambridge, MA: Berkman Center for Internet and Society, August 2009), http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications /2009/Open_Content_Licensing_for_Foundations
“National Institutes of Health Public Access,” National Institutes of Health website, http://publicaccess.nih.gov.
24 Building Fields for Policy Change
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.