Pablo Eisenberg
A Career of Social Commitment
Interview by Harold Simon and Karen Ceraso

Pablo Eisenberg became the third director of the Center for Community change in 1975. Prior to that, he was educated at Princeton and Oxford, worked for the US Information Agency in Africa from 1960-63, and served as the program director of Operation Crossroads, which provided a model for the new Peace Corps, from 1963-65. Over the years, he has worked as a consultant for a variety of community organizing groups, has served on the boards of numerous national and international organizations, and has published widely. He was also once a nationally ranked tennis player. Eisenberg is best known in the nonprofit world for his persistence, his willingness to challenge established perceptions, and his dedication to social justice. On June 30, 1998, Eisenberg retired from CCC leadership after 23 years.

A version of this interview appeared in the Sept./Oct. 1998 issue of Shelterforce. Eisenberg answered additional questions in a subsequent interview on November 21, 1998.

Harold Simon: How have things changed since you arrived at the Center for Community Change?

Pablo Eisenberg: As urban areas or some of the really tough depressed rural areas have become more difficult places in which to live, the job that poor people have to do in order to maintain their influence, get better jobs, stabilize their neighborhoods has become tougher and tougher.

"Well, look [people may say to us]; you've been working at this for 20 years, and things seem worse, not better, so why bother doing what you're doing?" Well, our answer is that things would be even worse were there no community-based organizations, no efforts at building houses and renovating homes, and trying to get jobs or trying to get services or trying to find better schools. At times it's a hard, unglamorous non-politically correct, not high publicity effort. But I'm pleased that we've kept our eyes on the prize.

I think that's been our niche-no one else is doing it, certainly not across racial and ethnic lines and across urban-rural lines in all 50 states. We kept working with grassroots organizations at the local level, on site, as the key to our work, although in the last three or four years we've stepped up our public policy activity.

HS: Is there a conflict with providing assistance to grassroots organizations so that they can set the agenda while developing a policy agenda?

PE: Historically we have always had a public policy dimension, and almost all of the issues have come out of the needs expressed by the local groups we work with. There could be a tension. I think we have got to work with good groups, in local communities, particularly in minority communities, on their priorities. They know best what they need.

It was clear that welfare reform, jobs, transportation, were going to be part of a major agenda. In a sense, the local groups by and large have shaped our policy, which we probably would have picked anyway, but it was a nice confluence of what they thought was important, and we also agreed with that. For example, we have had periodic briefings and meetings with community groups over the last three years on issues of welfare reform and jobs, which led to a national meeting at CCC.

There may have been issues that we have raised that did not come directly from the grassroots. We convened a national committee for responsible philanthropy, because there was an extraordinary need for money for disadvantaged constituencies. Was that a direct input from low-income grassroots organizations? No, but it certainly reflected their need and certainly the need of a lot of other constituents when we put it together.

Karen Ceraso: What do you make of the November elections and will there be a renewed interest in publicly funded programs, especially jobs through HUD?

PE: It's difficult to make a prognosis at this stage. The Congress is still in the hands of Republicans, the governors are largely Republican and fairly conservative. The Democrats are going to be leery of pushing for too many, quote, social programs that benefit the poor, so I don't expect very much of a change in the next couple of years. I think it will be more difficult for conservatives to pass restrictive legislation, certainly the type of Istook legislation that would like to undermine the advocacy potential of nonprofit organizations.

The one thing that could possibly turn around jobs programs might be research results that come in the next year, year and a half, showing that it has been extremely difficult, once the cream of the crop of welfare mothers have been placed, to find jobs for the other two-thirds, because there just aren't any opening-level jobs. That could possibly move Congress to pass more job creation programs.

Foundations and Nonprofits

HS: Foundations often support organizing around a specific issue, but seem loath to support organizing for power.

PE: That's absolutely true. Foundations have not changed during the last decades. They are still frightened to death to encourage organizing for public policy advocacy on the part of low-income and other disadvantaged constituencies.

HS: Are you implying that there's classism and racism here?

PE: Well, it may be. And it may not even be conscious. There still is, with memories of the rhetorical efforts of the 60s and 70s, a concept among many folks in the foundation world that these wild and crazy low-income folks are running around screaming. I think that a lot of them have never met with or seen what community-based organizations do and who the leaders are.

We used to criticize foundation boards for not having women and people of color on them. In the last 15 years there has been enormous progress in getting more diverse boards. And yet they are still the same goddamn boards. Why haven't they changed? Two reasons: one is class. They brought on the women and people of color who are the same as the former elite pool of white male corporate types. You know, the professionals and the wealthy, so there's no difference in attitude. But where are the ministers and the community leaders and the machinists and the teachers and the folks who are working or middle-class? And they have not put on people of the type of temperament that enables people to challenge, to think, to question, to have new ideas.

HS: Are you talking about foundation boards or program officers?

PE: Foundation boards. Well... it's also reflected in program officers, many of whom don't have real-life experience and have come to enjoy their privileged lifestyle. There is a culture in these foundations that makes it difficult for even the most sensitive and well-intentioned person who comes in to do a decent job.

Part of it is the lack of leadership among the top foundations, particularly in pushing for higher standards of performance and accountability in the field. Basically, I've said this time and time again: there is a total lack of intellectual fervor in philanthropy.

It's almost as though they don't care about the field as long as their foundation can do what it wants totally out of the sunshine. They don't care what anybody else does. They don't care whether the standards get higher or whether they are attacking the right problems in our country.

That arrogance is reflected in the increasing number of major foundation initiatives-which is not only depleting the amount of money available for the general purposes of nonprofits who need it, but is also setting the priorities of philanthropy.

So you have huge amounts of money in foundations like Casey and Rockefeller, and probably a lot of others, encumbered by their own initiatives. Some may be relevant, some may not. Some may be formed by one or two focus groups-which is one of the great rip-offs of American history. And they dominate the field.

Part of it is also that the foundation world is programmed for success. There is no programming for risk-taking, there's no programming for failure, there's no programming for taking the long road, having a vision, [sticking] with it for 20 years and then testing it out. The conservatives do that well. I think Michael Shuman was right in his article [see The Nation, 1/12/98], when he mentioned that the conservatives treat their grantees as colleagues. They have respect for them. When the mainstream foundations or the self-styled progressive liberal foundations deal with us, they have no respect for us. Time and time again we run into these foundations who think, and demand from us, that we're going to deliver a huge amount of work for $50,000. When I tell them that that buys not more than three-quarters of one person with benefits, if that-and you want us to save the South?-they don't care.

Another thing about foundations-they don't give a damn about donees. They don't care if we are paid shortly after the grant is made. They don't care if we have to meet a cash flow. We're asked to fit into their framework and they've become the end, not the means, to the greater mission of strengthening the nonprofit sector. That is the most telling of all. So there is this arrogance and lack of respect in the relationship, and it is awfully frustrating.

KC: During your tenure at CCC you were able to raise over half of your budget as general support. What was your secret and why is there such resistance to providing multi-year core operating support?

PE: We think we were able to raise approximately 70 percent of our money for general support because we demanded it. Many nonprofits make a huge mistake in not asking forcefully for what they really need to make the budget to underwrite the programs that they and their boards have set as priorities. There's this mystique about philanthropy that most nonprofits adhere to, and that is that they are beggars in the philanthropic process. So they stay on their knees and try to gauge what they think foundations and other donors want to give to. It is true that the amount of general support that foundations give has gone down slightly over the last ten years, but nevertheless some of us have found that by forcefully making the case for general support, we have often been able to get general support funding. If you don't request it, and assume that foundations don't want to give it and therefore under no circumstances will do so, then you put yourself in the posture of either distorting your priorities by asking for special project money, some of which you wouldn't ordinarily do, and other times basically falsifying your proposals in order to make somewhat of a general support proposal look like a special project proposal. It doesn't do very much for the integrity of the grantmaking process.

KC: What can NFG and its members do to encourage more of this type of funding?

PE: The major influence within the foundation world is pressure from foundation peers. That is, a few people within foundations can have much more of an impact on the foundation world than many of us on the outside can. If NFG members continue to increase their vocal support for the importance of general support, that will be heard and I think listened to ultimately within the foundation community. But they have got to raise their voice. When you look at what's being written in the journals, and in the organs of philanthropic institutions, and in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, you'll rarely see an article arguing for the importance of general support, for greater accountability for the foundation world, for the elimination of arrogance, in short for any philanthropic reforms; that has got to begin to happen.

KC: One way to expand the amount of funds that might be available for core operating support grants would be to increase the amount foundations are paying out as grants. Where do you stand on this and can you highlight key points you made at the NNG conference?

PE: Sure, I think my stance is fairly well known. It is not only tragic but almost criminal that the large foundations, which have so vastly increased their asset base over the last seven or eight years, still continue to give such a small amount in grants, that is, the legal minimum of five percent. But the major foundations don't give even five percent, and a large part of that five percent goes to operating costs, to rental and purchase of rental space or office space, trustee fees, PRIs and other expenditures connected to the running of the foundation operation. The major foundations in essence are probably giving anywhere from 4 percent to 4.4 percent in actual grants. At a time when the federal budget has been cut for domestic programs and many nonprofit organizations as a result have seen their operations and programs cut, there is a public obligation for the major foundations to increase their payout. I think it's not going to happen through self-reform, through the goodwill of the major foundations. It's only going to happen if it's legislated. So I would like to see a mandated increase in the payout to at least six percent of assets in grants, not just an increase from 5 percent to 6 percent, but 6 percent in grants. That is the minimum that would be useful.

There are lots of arguments being made, particularly by the Council on Foundations and some of the major foundations, that the payout is sacrosanct, that it shouldn't be increased above 5 percent because it will mean the eventual demise or the winding down of these foundations over 30 and 40 years. I think that's nonsense. There are now an increasing number of people, including some from Wall Street, who are questioning the Demarsh studies on which the Council on Foundations has so heavily relied to maintain their argument, questioning their assumptions, questioning some of the facts they have brought out.

There would be no shortage of money available for philanthropy 20, 30 years from now. The indications are that there will be something of at least a ten trillion dollar transfer from wealthy individuals into charitable organizations, into major super foundations, and there is going to be lots more money 20, 30 years from now than there is today. So even if by raising the payout a few foundations were to be downsized considerably, or a couple would go out of business, so what? There would still be such an enormous amount of money that it could take care of our charitable needs.

The other point that one can make is what is so sacrosanct about the five percent? If the Federal Reserve Bank can alter the most important economic tool, namely the interest rate that our country has, once or twice or three times a year, why can't the payout rate be changed from time to time? I would advocate as well as an increase in the payout rate-and mind that is an absolute bare minimum increase-that there be a review of the payout rate every five to ten years, by a charity commission of independent people neither tied to the foundation world nor to donees which could make a judgment what is an appropriate payout rate, given the economic forecast, given what's happening in the economy. That would be a guarantee to the foundations that the payout rate would not critically hurt them in the years ahead.

HS: You've said that nonprofits also suffer from a lack of accountability and vision.

PE: I don't want to spend all my time picking on foundations, although I do think they deserve the most criticism. I think increasingly the nonprofit sector is in trouble because of its lack of accountability. I suspect that maybe a majority of nonprofit organizations never issue any public reports, even fiscal statements. You have cases of CDCs that have never had an audit.

There are some CDC directors who run outfits with 7, 8, 9 people who have actually consulted for money, when in fact they ought to be putting all their time-if it's 90 or 100 hours-into that CDC. There's no sense that there's a conflict of interest; they're being paid decently. If in fact that's not enough, then the board ought to decide, "Should we give this person more money or find someone else?"

And more and more nonprofits are saying the answer is becoming more entrepreneurial: "We have got to make money regardless of whether or not we keep our mission intact." But they've adopted the corporate values-a Twilight Zone of ethics, moonlighting, boards that don't oversee the organization, or are dominated by staff, à la the corporation. That's why there's a loss of passion and anger in the nonprofit world.

The sector is also fragmented-very much the product of funding sources. New organizations-be they gay, lesbian, health, environmental-[are constantly being started that] hold their executive directors accountable for a very narrow agenda. The incentives are all for Joe to save the "demi-goose" and not work together on a broader issue that affects the total community. No one's rewarded for being part of a coalition.

HS: And you feel that there are no coalitions because of a lack of vision, leadership, and accountability as well as a lack of support by funders for that kind of building and advocacy organizing?

PE: The only way you're going to do that is through general support grants.

Organizing vs. Development

HS: How do you define grassroots community organizing?

PE: Speaking for myself, and I think for most of my colleagues, we think there are lots of different ways of organizing, and that there's no one foolproof model. The IAF folks do it extraordinarily well, and they have their set piece, and it's faith-based organizing. ACORN has individual membership organizing, and probably of all the networks, they get down to the poorest of the poor these days. And you have variants from Gamaliel, PICO, DART-you name them. They are trying to build power and influence on the part of low-income and working-class citizens to change institutions, and I think that's organizing.

HS: Is there a conflict between organizing and developing?

PE: Unfortunately, the big intermediaries have thrown their total lot into CDCs as housing producers rather than housing facilitators. I would argue that instead of trying to build up the capacity among CDCs for production, they ought to be more interested in how much CDCs catalyze new or renovated housing, regardless of whether CDCs are the producers.

Second of all, there is this feeling that the optimum relationship that CDCs need to have with the community is love-ins with mayors, corporations, and banks. And therefore anything that might disturb that love-in is counterproductive.

Well, the point is that that's not the way to win a war, and that love-ins are sometimes a prescription for mediocrity. You never want a love-in with a government. You want tension. You want to be able to beat the hell out of them and them knowing that you can do that as well as showing that you want to cooperate where it's possible.

HS: You're saying they can do both.

PE: Sure, you can do both. But you have to have a leadership that understands that and is smart in how to do that.

HS: Someone who's not afraid to bite the hand that feeds him?

PE: That's exactly right. And to fight for what he thinks is right. And there's no doubt that someone who has got a CDC that can mobilize 2,000 people is going to be looked on with some feeling of fear by a bank. Because that bank knows that those 2,000 can pull out their deposits, that they can yell and scream and create a storm, like the Downtown Welfare Rights group did with 2,000 pickets around the Mobil Corporation in New York City.

I think there ought to be a common strategy between organizing groups and CDCs. "Hey organizing groups, you can do what we think we can't do. And we'll support you behind the scenes. Or, we'll support you if you support us."

HS: Are organizing groups also not jumping into this collaboration because they, well, organize?

PE: Yeah, they're suspicious. And some of these organizers are as arrogant as anyone else. They've got big turf problems-my style is not your style-and they don't share. One of the interesting things we've tried to do is to find a way to get the organizing groups and all the networks to start working together. Clearly, one has to do that around a non-turf issue.

So we've seen public policy as an extraordinary opportunity to make that happen. And to produce public policy initiatives that have weight because there are not just one or two networks. The beauty about working on public policy is that these networks can get together without worrying about style. Our constituents have a common problem for us to tackle. We're not going to do it unless we have numbers. The leadership of those networks aren't quite there. The members are gradually getting there.

HS: And the funders?

PE: You can't say you have a serious priority on poor people unless you are willing to fund them for organizing policy and advocacy. Because doing a traditional job, whether it's service delivering or economic development, is no longer good enough. They have to fight for their constituents at the local and state level.

HS: Where is community organizing going?

PE: I'm hopeful that community organizing and other grassroots groups are beginning to band together around some important issues. There's a lot more organizing going on around jobs, welfare reform, transportation, than there ever was. And that's a healthy sign. There are some signs that various groups are willing to collaborate with one another.

One of the problems has been that since the days of OEO, there has not been much money for getting grassroots groups together. There probably are now a few more foundations that are willing to fund this type of advocacy work at the local level than there used to be. Butler is doing good work, and the French-American Charitable Trust, and Needmor and a few more.

The real test will be if a number of the big foundations will be willing to put money into that type of effort and for a long period of time. There are some initiatives within these foundations by some serious, decent program officers to try to get that money. Whether it's an institutional priority-that remains to be seen.

KC: Recently a local labor leader described organizing and collective bargaining as anti-poverty strategies. What do you think of the new collaborations between organized labor and community based organizations? What are their strengths and weaknesses and potential problems?

PE: It is a natural alliance between community based organization that are seeking a better life for their constituents, almost all of whom are low income people or working poor or working class, and labor unions that should have those objectives in mind, and who want to organize more people in the work force who are at the rock bottom minimum wage; janitors and cleaning people and superintendents of buildings are cases in point. So I think that there is a natural mutual concern. Plus both constituencies could use each other's members to reinforce their influence and power certainly at the local level.

Much also depends on the integrity and the mission of the unions. There are some unions that community based organizations would not want to get in bed with, those that have histories of corruption and unfruitful practices. There are other unions that are not very concerned about the unemployed, who look primarily to their members who are employed. And I think that raises a question for many community-based organizations.

But by and large I think it's a potential alliance that holds a lot in store for good organizing and good issue development, and in winning some real victories for low-income people.

KC: Do you think citizen monitoring of public and private institutions is relevant today?

PE: Well, given the fact that devolution is well under way, the issue of citizen monitoring is more relevant, more important than ever before. There is now no substantial federal oversight, no enforcement of public accountability on the part of the Fed. So state and local governments are pretty much on their own. Very few of them have serious public accountability mechanisms. Only a handful actually evaluate the impact of the programs they are running in their states and localities. It is hard for citizens to get any information about what is happening in many places. State and local legislatures are badly in need of structural procedural reform. There is a need for capacity building, for training of state and local government officials. And none of that is happening, so I do think that two strategies need to be put in place.

The first is the strategy of public and outside pressure on state and local governments' performance. Citizen monitoring is a major tool of that outside pressure because it gives citizen groups and civic organizations the ability to monitor and evaluate the impact of state and local programs on cities and states to see whether the intended beneficiaries are receiving benefits, whether there is openness in the programs, whether these programs are run free of conflicts of interest, etc. But there is a need for money for that, and that is where the foundation world has not put in any resources over the last 20 years. In fact, they have clearly avoided being involved in citizen monitoring.

The other strategy is an inside strategy that is building a new capacity within state and local governments to handle their new responsibilities. Getting better trained staff, conducting reforms structurally and procedurally, beefing up state legislatures or local legislatures so that in fact they can meet their new obligations. That also has not been funded by the foundation world so that you have a devolution process which is not being paralleled by an increased capacity either of governments to make their own changes or citizens to hold government accountable. And this is where I think the foundation world ought to be indicted for really not meeting the most urgent public needs.

HS: What's in the future for CCC?

PE: I would hope that it maintains its vision and commitment to low-income grassroots, that it will continue to work on the ground with organizations in public policy.

I would hope also that it might do some new initiatives in the youth field and other things that we're exploring-economic development, jobs. And I hope we continue to be tough and outspoken and not take any crap from anybody.

It's hard. Our budget is over $6 million, $3.6 of which is general support, so I think we've had the flexibility to do what we've done because we've have had a strong general support budget. I hope that is maintained.

KC: And finally, now that you've been retired for a few months, do you have any new insights?

PE: I wish I could say I've been retired. I found the last two and a half months extraordinarily busy, it's like working full time but I've been really full time outside the particular institution and pro-bono, and so I've been working with lots of institutions whose boards I am on and other organizations with which I am in great sympathy. And I'm trying to write more. I hope to continue doing that.

I plan to become a senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, and I will be a Visiting Fellow at Notre Dame for the Spring 1999 term.

So, it's been a lot of fun. There is in one sense sorrow at leaving my old colleagues after more than twenty-three years. On the other hand, there is a feeling of liberation by not being tied to one organization for so many years. I guess they are balancing off.

Harold Simon is the executive director of the National Housing Institute and the editor of Shelterforce magazine. Karen Ceraso is the senior editor of Shelterforce magazine.

Back to NFG Home Page.

1301 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 500 • Washington, DC 20036 • Phone: (202) 833-4690 • Fax: (202) 833-4694 • nfg@nfg.org
Copyright © 1998-2008 • Web Site Usage Policies