Evaluating Grassroots Organizing and Organizations: Choosing CO Groups to Fund
EVALUATING GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING AND ORGANIZATIONS: CHOOSING CO GROUPS TO FUND
| I think funders must allow communities to choose their own issues and organizing approach. Anything else is manipulative. It's especially bad when white outsiders dictate organizing methods to poor people of color who have good reason to feel disenfranchised and discriminated against.61 |
|
- Garland Yates,
Annie E. Casey Foundation
|
Whatever rationale, goals and funding strategies new funders choose, the effectiveness of their CO grantmaking rests on the quality and performance of their grantees. All of the thoughtful ideas and guidance from others can add up to very little if funders' grant decisions are not very good. This is in part why experienced CO funders claim there is no substitute for getting into communities and talking with folks, listening and learning before making their decisions. No proposal or advice can tell a funder what a group looks, feels and smells like. Funders can minimize grantmaking mistakes through on-site interactions with CO groups, their staffs, leaders and constituents.
As one funder said in urging colleagues to conduct site visits before making grants, "even renowned winemakers taste each of their offerings each year to be sure they meet high standards."
Looking at the General Characteristics of Grassroots Organizations. Following are some key questions to ask.
- Does the organization involve large numbers of people in its geographic location?
- Are its members actively involved in the work of the organization in ways that go beyond subscribership or donating money?
- Is it democratic, with the leadership and staff accountable to the membership?
- What are its principle objectives?
| Developing the capacity of its members to
participate effectively in public
life? | ||
| Delivering concrete victories on issues of
direct concern to its
constituency? | ||
| Affecting institutions, public policies and
power relationships in ways that
advance social, environmental and economic
justice?63 |
|
Learning from the Community: A Guide to CO Funding Leaders of the New York Foundation
stress that the Foundation's
expanding commitment to CO is directly related
to board and staff reflection and
the on-going dialogue that exists
between board, staff and grantees. The
Foundation's year-long review
process in 1992-93 involved extensive outreach
to the community and several
facilitated discussions involving staff and
trustees about grantmaking
priorities. When the review was completed, the
Foundation chose to redirect a
considerable portion of its grants
and grant dollars from direct services to CO.
New York Foundation grants
supporting direct service programs fell from
just under 25 percent of total
distributions in 1991- 1992 to about 6 percent
in 1995, while grants supporting
CO increased from 18 percent to
46 percent during the same period. Today the Foundation's grantmaking prioritizes long-term commitments to CO groups in the City. "What is good about the New York Foundation," executive director Madeline Lee states, "is that we listen to our grantees rather than to other funders. This in fact should be the first, second and third priority - to listen to the people who have the problems and who are struggling the most." Foundation Trustee Robert Pollack agrees. In fact, he argues that it is out of this process of learning about and from grantees that long-term philanthropic strategies and priorities can and should emerge.62 |
Grantmaking Criteria. Grant-making criteria vary from funder to funder. Most make few, if any, distinctions between the requirements for CO groups and those expected of other grantseekers. However, funders making a serious long-term commitment to CO have found it helpful to have a set of criteria that can help them to identify effective CO groups - as well as to distinguish CO groups from other kinds of community organizations.
One leading CO funder, the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, developed and uses the following checklist to evaluate CO groups.
| Membership | |
 | Does
the organization have a membership or
constituency base? |
| Is there a
membership recruitment plan? Does it include
one-on-one engagement of people?
Does membership recruitment play an important
role in the organization? Is there a
mechanism to retain current members? |
| Does
the membership reflect the diversity of the
community? |
| Is there active
participation in the group by people of color
and women? Are questions of race
and gender addressed in the education
and leadership development process of the
group? |
| Leadership
and Governance |
|
| Is the
organization democratic? Specifically, does the
membership have some direct control
over the decision-making process and structure
of the organization? Over
programmatic policies, the budget and
staffing? |
| Are members and
leaders involved in all levels of the
organization, including fundraising
and financial oversight? |
| Is the
leadership elected, and actively changing every
few years? |
| Are people of
color and women part of the decision-making and
leadership bodies? |
| Does
the organization have an identifiable
leadership development process? |
|
If the organization is staffed, are
professional community organizers
included in the staffing structure? Are they
trained and regularly provided
additional training opportunities? |
| Strategy | |
| Does
the organizational mission identify the values
of social, economic and
environmental justice as part of its work? |
|
Does the group have the ability to
realistically assess the political
terrain and devise strategies to address their
concerns in the long and short
term? |
|
Does the organization think
systematically about the education of
its membership, leadership and staff? |
|
Is there evidence that the group
works collaboratively in coalitions? |
| Does
the organization have a strategic plan in place
that makes them viable and
sustainable for the long haul? |
| Is
the organization developing its own culture,
social relationships and
celebrations? |
| Impact | |
| Is
the organization developing creative solutions
to difficult community
problems? |
| Does the
organization have a record of and/or the
capacity for delivering
victories? |
| Is the
organization increasing the civic participation
of communities traditionally left
out of the political process? |
| Does
the organization have a stated method for
organizational evaluation? Is the
evaluatory process a measure of the objectives
met as well as a learning tool for
the organization? |
Tips for Smaller Funders: One Funder's Perspective. With all of the CO groups and strategies to choose from, how can a small funder new to CO grantmaking wisely allocate resources? The Liberty Hill Foundation, a local foundation in Los Angeles, has nearly a quarter century of CO grantmaking experience. Funders with similar size or even far smaller allocations available for CO than Liberty Hill's may find elements of the Foundation's approach, as well as its overall strategy, worthy of further investigation.
The Liberty Hill Foundation makes some $3 million in grants annually, nearly all of them for CO or related efforts in the Los Angeles area. The Foundation's grantmaking strategy provides flexibility, allows coverage of a range of different groups and permits the Foundation to focus on top priorities. In its strategy, the Foundation seeks to achieve the best possible balance between the desirability and need to fund new CO groups, and requirements for long-term support to established CO organizations that can help them grow and address more difficult and complex challenges. Key elements of the strategy include:
- Flexible grantmaking categories that can provide both start-up grants for fledgling CO efforts as well as larger grants to intermediate-size platform or anchor CO groups;
- A single annual cycle per grant area or category, along with an interim funding option; and
- A combination of focused grant programs as well as ones that can accommodate various organizational needs and sizes.
In addition to its central grantmaking, the Foundation also provides small grants for technical assistance to grantees and frequently convenes grantees for training and technical assistance purposes.64
61 Garland Yates, "Passive Progressive," City Limits, November 1998.
62 Drawn from "The New York Foundation and Empowerment-Oriented Grantmaking," in Sally Covington and Larry Parachini, Foundations in the Newt Era, Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, September 1995.
62 Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, undated internal materials.
64 Liberty Hill Foundation materials adapted by Emily Goldfarb, consultant, March, 2000.