|
|
KEY LESSONS FROM GRANTMAKERS
- The legal restrictions on lobbying can be subtle and need to be studied carefully. But they permit a broad range of advocacy that includes taking positions on important public issues of the day. This guide does not present nearly enough information to constitute a thorough grounding in the legalities of advocacy grantmaking. But it does illustrate a wide field of completely legal philanthropy whose purpose is to affect government decisions and actions. Too often, foundations shy away from advocacy because of an exaggerated fear of violating lobbying rules. Yet grantmakers, grantees, and their legal counsel all agree that such fears impose a needless limitation on the possible effectiveness of philanthropy. Worse, they may actually constitute a neglect of one important responsibility of philanthropy: to stimulate public awareness and debate of issues that affect people's well being.
- The most fundamental, and most common, form of advocacy grant is one that contributes to a more informed, more inclusive public debate. "Advocacy" doesn't always mean promoting a particular point of view. Sometimes, it means bringing to light more information about a public problem, or helping more people to participate in the debate, so that whatever policy is written, it will have the benefit of the best information and the most lively exchange of ideas. Even when the goal truly is to promote a particular solution or approach to a problem, the first step may need to be circulating more information and engaging more people’s participation. This isn't just a matter of funding more and better research. It also means presenting the research in an engaging way, to the right audiences, in terms that each sub-set of the audience will understand and care about. That challenge combines the arts of scholarship, journalism, advertising, mass media, constituency organizing, coalition-building, and political analysis. All are possible objects of strategic grantmaking, and most successful advocacy contains some combination of several of these features at once. In a recent publication, advocacy grantmaker Ruth Holton, of the California Wellness Foundation, offered this guidance, which many others echoed: "An effective public education campaign needs to be designed by experts who, through market research, can identify an effective message and the appropriate population to target."
- The presence of controversy and the possibility of confronting opposition are not reasons to avoid advocacy. In fact, they may be the most important reason to engage in advocacy - given adequate precautions. Grantmakers emphasize that confronting opposition and negotiating an effective compromise are not necessarily opposite alternatives. They are often two aspects of a single process. "A steady line of confrontation, with back-channels of negotiation, makes the negotiation more effective," said one advocacy veteran. When a policy issue may involve confrontation or controversy, several grantmakers advise being candid about that possibility with colleagues, executives and trustees, and planning carefully in advance for how such controversy can be managed. It's essential to know how much attention and controversy each grantmaker - and each organization - can accept, and plan grants and activities accordingly. Often, said one grantmaker, "your willingness to take some heat goes up dramatically when the issue is one that your foundation really considers important. Know what you believe in, and you'll pretty much know what you can advocate for."
- It is possible, if not always easy, to measure the effectiveness of an advocacy effort. But it's best to be patient in looking for measurable results. The question of how to assess advocacy grants is now the subject of a growing body of experience and writing. Different funders have used a combination of approaches: measuring process and activity; measuring outcomes (without necessarily knowing which activities caused which outcomes); or even measuring direct impact - that is, the question of what effect was brought about by a given, specific activity. It's a rare assessment of any kind of philanthropic activity that can conclusively prove success or failure. But the idea that the value of advocacy grants can't be assessed as confidently as other kinds of grants, is widely and vigorously disputed.
- There are many roles for grantmakers who want to support advocacy. Choosing your personal level of involvement can be as important as deciding what to support. This guide includes observations from grantmakers who have personally drafted policy proposals and position papers, met with public officials, hosted policy forums, and made public statements in print or broadcast media. Many others, however, prefer to let their grantees take the lead in all these areas, even to the extent of keeping their own role, and the foundation’s name, as deep in the background as possible Between these two extremes lie many possible middle positions. How a grantmaker chooses among them will depend on the skills and strengths of the available grantees, the grantmaker's own expertise and available time, and the foundation’s willingness to play a public role. The main message of all the grantmakers who contributed to this guide was: Any of these approaches can be consistent with effective, vigorous advocacy and successful participation in the policy process.
|
