Partnering, Effective Strategy Drive Gates Advocacy Work

Jason Rohloff, Senior Policy Officer, U.S. Program Advocacy, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Q: How does the Gates Foundation choose particular public policy strategies to move your mission forward?
The issues that the foundation tackles are thorny and difficult, and we recognize that addressing these issues often requires policymakers and others to re-shape their thinking about them. By law, we cannot lobby, but we can work with our grantees to shape policy through advocacy, and we do so in a variety of ways. Our approach to grantmaking for advocacy activities, of course, differs depending on the strengths and core competencies of our grantees.

For example, the foundation may make a grant to a multi-state organization to convene stakeholders to focus discussion on a specific education issue, while another organization may be better suited to conduct research and produce reports to help educate and inform about an issue. In addition, the foundation may help an organization develop content expertise through added staff capacity or work with a cadre of groups – such as civil rights organizations or businesses – to explore the possibility of creating a “chorus” of voices focused on a specific topic.

Advocacy can take place in numerous ways. The challenge for us is to identify organizations best qualified to successfully execute proposed activities.

In our U.S. education work, the ultimate determinant of success is every student graduating from high school ready for college and attaining a post-secondary degree or credential with fair market value. Here again, the challenge is finding the appropriate mix of effective advocacy strategies that will allow those two critical events to happen.

Q: How does the Gates Foundation – as a large, national funder – address the many challenges that arise when engaging in public policy work?
We work with other foundations that address similar policy goals in order to access the best collective thinking, maximize philanthropic potential, and increase the probability that the work will be sustained beyond the grant period.

In addition, we listen to our grantees, as they are best suited to tell us what will and will not work based on their experience.

A large challenge is that we are only funders and shapers, and we depend upon others to act and implement. This includes public policymakers and, given the current resource constraints, this can make implementation of effective education practices difficult.

Q: What is your approach to measuring impact, success?
We recognize that the most elegant evaluation is only meaningful if its findings are used to inform others and strengthen our work to improve people’s lives.

Our measurement approach is driven by three basic principles:

1. Measurement should be designed with a specific purpose – to assess progress toward educating, informing and impacting target audiences;
2. Do not measure everything, but strive to measure what is most important;
3. Because the foundation’s work is organized by strategies, the data we gather help us learn and adapt our initiatives and approaches.

Q: How has the economic climate affected the Gates Foundation’s public policy work?
Like many other philanthropic organizations, our foundation saw a decrease in its endowment due to the fiscal downturn in 2008 and 2009. While there is always a need for more resources to address the challenging issues humans face across our three programmatic areas, the fiscal crisis did allow the foundation to take a closer look at where it was dedicating resources and the effectiveness of those investments. We will continue to review areas where we believe the foundation can be most effective in the future.  GF

Unlocking the Power of Local People to Transform Their Communities

Kathy Gaalswyk, President, Initiative Foundation

Q: Why does the Initiative Foundation believe that developing or encouraging civic engagement is so crucial to its work?
In 1986, six Minnesota Initiative Foundations (MIFs) encompassing greater Minnesota were created based on the premise that local people are the key resource to improving overall community health and well-being. As one of the six MIFs, the Initiative Foundation, based in Little Falls, exists for one purpose: To improve the quality of life in central Minnesota.

At the core of our work is the belief that local people possess the talent, passion and ability to achieve a brighter future. This is why, through our programs and investments, we strive to give every person an opportunity to contribute to a shared vision and plan of action that strengthens community character and relationships. We continue to see great things happen when community leaders gather to create a vision and action plan for the future and are intentional about involving local folks in implementing that plan. This is true in good economic times and in difficult times like right now.

Q: How does the Initiative Foundation’s work inspire more people to be involved in bringing about change in their communities?
We’ve developed a four-prong approach of providing training, technical assistance, resource referral and grants to help citizen-based teams develop and carry out strategic plans. This brings about a great deal of civic involvement.

Our four prongs weave through our program areas, which include: Healthy Communities, focusing on community development; Healthy Lakes and Rivers, which addresses water resource stewardship; Healthy Organizations, building the capacity and effectiveness of nonprofit boards and staff; Early Childhood Coalitions, centering around young children; Thrive, which envelopes the social and emotional well-being of children; and Youth, focusing on youth engagement in philanthropy.

Through the visioning and planning processes of the Healthy Communities program, for example, we see people get excited about what can be different, and they realize they want to be part of creating that change. We’ve discovered that once people get involved, they are more likely to run for public office or seek appointed positions in local government.

The Princeton and North Branch Early Childhood coalitions have been extremely successful at helping legislators understand the importance of early childhood issues. Many candidates have made it a campaign priority, and several are members of their respective local coalitions.

While it is difficult to pin-point specific legislation that has been enacted, most agree that early childhood programs – including Early Childhood Family Education, Early Childhood Special Education, Head Start and childcare – have experienced significantly lower cuts than they would have without the advocacy efforts of coalition members.

In our Healthy Organizations program, we have a segment on public policy essentials for nonprofits. We address the topic again when we talk about the Standards of Excellence for nonprofits. We teach nonprofits about their role in improving the life of the community, including increasing public and legislator awareness of the issues. The program essentials emphasize what role nonprofits can and cannot have in elections, direct lobbying and other areas of public policy engagement.

Additionally, Wilder Research has surveyed alumni of our programs and found they increased their civic engagement as a direct result of participating in these programs. The survey also showed that business leaders who have worked with our economic development staff also became more engaged civically.

Q: What is challenging about this work?
People are busy, they get tired sometimes, and it is easy to feel discouraged when forces out of their control seem to influence their fate. That is why it is important to engage emerging leaders, to be open to new ideas and solutions, and to match volunteers with their areas of interest and talent. Rural communities, in particular, can struggle with limited human and financial resources and the current economic challenges.

Q: What strategies work well to increase civic engagement?
First, we’ve found that efforts to increase civic engagement work well when a group has short- and long-term action items. Completing a project or activity immediately helps the group coalesce and build energy for the longer-term work.
Second, we’ve learned to look for those community “spark plug” folks who provide leadership within local teams, track follow-up items and engage other partners. A foundation like ours can provide important training, assistance and funding, but we will leave at some point. Our work is about building the local capacity and structure to continue the work over the long haul. These “spark plug” individuals are critical to the longevity of grassroots work.
Third, providing modest grant funds is important. Often it doesn’t take very much funding, but funding can be a barrier to getting a project done.

And finally, quality information is essential. Two people can’t have a civil, productive discussion about an issue unless they share common facts.

Because we believe that information inspires action, our foundation publishes IQ (Initiative Quarterly) Magazine, a free alternative journalism publication, to educate community leaders about emerging issues. Sometimes we break new ground. Other times, we provide the “CliffsNotes” version by boiling down many different sources. As for-profit news media continue to cut journalists, it’s falling on nonprofits to fill the void in providing trustworthy, objective information.

We also are partnering with the Bush Foundation and Minnesota Public Radio to pilot a community journalism program that is reporting on local issues before and during community planning processes in Todd County, which is looking at aging and immigration in its population, and Baldwin Township, which is exploring smart growth. We are testing the theory that more and better information leads to better outcomes. Stay tuned.

Q: How do you share and exchange knowledge with others doing similar work?
We are conveners of Friends in the Field, a statewide group of professionals involved in community development. The group has been meeting for about two years to share best practices and resources. It’s been a great vehicle for information exchange and encouragement. GF

Don’t Let Myths Inhibit Your Public Policy Engagement

Anita Foster, MCF public policy fellow

During the past year I listened to grantmakers talk in depth about their advocacy and education work and their goals for creating change. I also culled through academic research and anecdotal reporting on philanthropy and public policy. From this work, I’ve discovered philanthropists are grappling with two myths:

1. Engaging in public policy equals lobbying legislators.
2. Public policy work is intimidating, difficult, not for everyone and off limits to nearly all organizations.

To help dispel these myths, I’d like to offer some insight I’ve gleaned from my work as MCF’s public policy fellow.

Public Policy Engagement Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Lobbying
Mention “public policy engagement” in a conversation with foundation staff, and talk will often (and quickly) turn to whether a foundation lobbies and how much. But, impacting public decision making is much more. It is providing research on an issue, educating the public about issues and solutions, building networks to more effectively address challenges, communicating amongst stakeholders, and yes, lobbying. All of this is engaging in public policy work.

Unless your foundation has as its mission “to advance the status quo,” you are most likely involved in some public policy activities – you just may not have labeled them as such.

Lobbying is 1 of 18 Public Policy Activities
Lobbying is just one of several – at least 18 – different ways to engage in systems change. In my fellowship work, I used a Framework of Public Policy Activities (see Page 1), based on research done by the Harvard Family Research Project, which separates 18 tactics into distinct, measurable strategies for influencing public decision making.

While lobbying at the legislature may be the culmination of public policy work, it is by no means the sole way foundations can – or should – impact systems change.

Policy change is the result of a multitude of efforts, years of work and engagement all along the continuum of activities. While some foundations lobby, others use social media, build coalitions, convene stakeholders or fund grassroots organizing or capacity building. Of the 18 activities, most foundations can do 17, with only one – lobbying – legally restricted for some organizations.

Not All Lobbying Is the Same
The IRS defines lobbying narrowly, making it just one subset of public policy engagement. But within that definition are three different types of lobbying.

Direct lobbying is communication with a legislator, legislative staff member or government official that refers to and takes a position on a specific piece of legislation or legislative proposal.

Grassroots lobbying is communication with the general public that refers to and takes a position on specific legislation or a legislative proposal and includes a clear “call to action.”

Federal law restricts some foundations from direct and grassroots lobbying. Self-defense lobbying is an exception. Foundations are permitted to lobby when proposed legislation would affect the existence of a foundation, its powers and duties, tax-exempt status or the deductibility of contributions.

A very helpful resource on these topics is MCF’s “Philanthropy and Public Trust: What Every Grantmaker Should Know & Frequently Asked Legal Questions.” View it at mcf.org/publictrust.

Broad Social Issues Can Be Addressed Without Lobbying
Foundations can fund research or information campaigns on general policy issues – for example, the importance of early childhood programs or environmental protection – provided the communications do not address specific legislation.

• Even if a research report includes specific policy recommendations, it does not constitute lobbying if the report:
• Presents a “sufficiently full and fair exposition,” a standard requiring a rational analysis and fact-based argument in support of the report’s conclusions;
• Does not include a direct call to action. It must not explicitly encourage recipients to contact legislators or accomplish the same objective by providing information or materials such as legislators’ addresses or phone numbers or preprinted postcards that can be sent to legislators;
• Is not distributed solely to persons who are interested in only one side of the issue.

Rules for Funding Public Policy Differ for Public and Private Foundations
Public and private foundations can fund 501(c)3 organizations engaged in a broad array of public policy activities. Neither foundation type needs to restrict grantees from using their funds for lobbying.

But private foundations (those generally founded by an individual, family or group of individuals) may not earmark – in other words designate or direct – grants for lobbying purposes. Legally, corporate foundations are considered private.

Public foundations (those that are publicly supported, receive their funds from a variety of individual donors and are operated by, and for the benefit of, a specific community or geographic region) have greater flexibility and can earmark grants for lobbying. Such earmarked grants generally count as a lobbying expenditure.
Wondering which Minnesota foundations are public or private? MCF’s member list is categorized by public and private on its website, mcf.org.

Level of Public Policy Engagement Not Limited
Outside of lobbying, there’s no legal limit to how much public policy engagement is allowed. Staff at foundations with extensive public policy experience advise philanthropists who haven’t previously strategically or intentionally engaged in public policy to just start – begin at a level that feels comfortable, see what it’s like, and then adjust as needed. Public policy engagement can be a vital part of every foundation’s work for the common good.

One way to be engaged is to be part of a funders network. Foundations may join together for a common purpose to increase understanding of an issue or leverage resources. Sometimes collaborations are informal, with shared agendas and separate foundation engagement strategies; in other cases, the collaboration itself becomes a separate entity formalized with a distinct mission, strategic plan, pooled funds and specific fundraising goals.

Avoiding Public Policy Work Doesn’t Mean You’re Staying Neutral
During a panel discussion at the MCF-hosted 2010 Public Policy Luncheon, Bernadine Joselyn, Blandin Foundation’s director of public policy and engagement, eloquently articulated a point with which I’d like to conclude:

“There is no such thing as neutrality in our work. We as foundations are values-based organizations; we have a mission statement, and this implies a stance. Owning that and recognizing that is very empowering for foundations.”

Anita Foster’s public policy fellowship is part of a partnership between MCF and the Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute. GF

Making Our Dreams Become Reality Requires Intentionality, Inclusion

Tawanna Black, MCF diversity fellow

Do you have the powers to make my dreams come true? What about your own? If you did, what kinds of dreams would you convert into reality?

We have so many to choose from...dreams for homeless children, dreams for impoverished communities, dreams for depleted neighborhoods. We imagine eliminating racism, teen pregnancy and violence. And what about our visions of increasing social enterprise and financial self-sufficiency? Or our ultimate dreams for collaboration among grantees and community-based organizations, models that really work, and grants that exceed expectations?

Minnesota grantmakers, individual philanthropists and nonprofits are dreamers of all sorts. The question is what do we add to ensure our dreams become reality?

Disparities Abound
In the last few months, Minnesota grantmakers and nonprofits have released new research reports about racial and gender disparities in health, education, income, wealth, homelessness and more. These disparities lie in stark contrast to the visions we strive to fulfill through grantmaking and programming.

These reports and statistics about glaring inequities may shock individuals who don’t experience them every day. For people whose lives reflect the disparities, the reports confirm that someone is listening, watching and knows what’s happening. And maybe, just maybe, someone cares and knows enough to make a difference and put dreams into action.

Working with Intentionality
It would be easy to say that good intentions will get us there. We’ll close the gaps, empower the people, and solve all of society’s ills. But how? Good intentions can be misdirected. We are fully committed to talking about disparities and gaps, hosting forums and community dialogues. We’re committed to funding research to measure change, even when we have no physical evidence to make us believe that it has.

But, to actually commit to addressing a disparity for as long as it takes to create systemic change and to sustain improved outcomes, too often we hesitate … even when those outcomes are the very dreams that fuel the missions of our organizations. This lack of clear intentionality becomes a dream deferred.

Inclusion Means Adjusting the Golden Rule
For years we’ve been taught to treat others the way we want to be treated. I’ve never really thought that concept worked. Sure, if I want you to smile at me, I smile at you, or if I don’t want you to keep walking when I’m struggling to open a door, I should take time to help you with a door.

But when we get beyond the basics of kindness and apply the rule to human services and community building, it’s a bit flawed. For instance, a development approach that works in one neighborhood may not work in another that has different experiences and challenges. But, how will we know that?

We will know and understand by including in our work those we seek to serve and by creating a “platinum rule”: Treat others the way they want to be treated.

Disparities as significant and sustained as those facing Minnesotans cannot be addressed in isolation. An inclusive model not only engages those we seek to serve, but it ensures that their perspectives, resources and talents are utilized in meaningful ways from beginning to end. This model has also been proven critical to sustaining change by creating a sense of collective ownership and progress.

LISC Models Inclusion in Local Policymaking
One local example of intentionality and inclusion is Twin Cities LISC’s policy work. In 2005 it launched a community engagement pilot program with five Community Development Corporations. The lessons learned in The Building Sustainable Communities program are words of wisdom for foundations and nonprofits seeking to increase constituent engagement in policymaking:

• Community engagement requires a sustained, long-term commitment to thinking strategically and imaginatively with the community. This demands a high level of intention and accountability, because the process can be slow, cumbersome, sometimes tense, and can seem to undermine other goals and timelines. Progress can be difficult to discern.
• Community engagement is resource- and time-intensive. It takes effort at all levels of an organization to build lasting, authentic relationships of trust among community partners. It requires greater resources from public and philanthropic partners to achieve deep, equitable civic participation.
• No one size fits all. What works for one organization may not apply to others. What is effective in one situation may not be easily replicated in another.

Community engagement reinforces community voice, not programs or strategies, as the driver of process.

Using these and other lessons learned, we must keep dreaming. Dreams are the foundation of generations of change and progress in our organizations and communities. And, just as important, are intention and inclusion. GF

© Copyright 2010 Minnesota Council on Foundations
Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited.