Risky Business

When Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus delivered the talk that has everyone talking, they chose an influential audience: environmental grantmakers. Although the now (in)famous pair focused on mainstream advocacy organizations in their discussion of the death of environmentalism, others have contended that new thinking by the folks who write the checks is key to revitalizing the movement. We've invited four representatives from foundations around the U.S. to discuss the issue. Most recent post of the day.

From: Rhea Suh
To: Hooper Brooks, Stuart Clarke, Enrique Salmón
Subject: In search of new strategies
Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:32 a.m. PST

Stuart, thanks for the clarification! Sorry, got it now! Yes, I am in agreement. I wish we were better at building broader collaborations within the progressive movement, and while it drives me crazy that we can't seem to figure out better ways of doing that, I understand the challenges. How many true funder collaboratives have you seen? It's hard for us to do it, even within our own communities.

Enrique raises an important question that speaks to risk tolerance in our grantmaking. Before I expand, let me put a caveat in that I'm making generalizations about our sector from the perspective of one foundation. I'm eager to hear all of your perspectives on this.

How do we classify "risk," and how far are we willing to go to take it? I think there may be some tensions for foundations, all of which presumably look for solid investments from which they can expect some sort of social return. For this, we look at things like organizational health, capacity, capability, strength of leadership, strength of budget, and a track record. I'd say that most of the large environmental NGOs fall into this category. They, in some ways, are "safe" investments, but as Enrique points out, they can also be entrenched. The whole inside-the-Beltway game has its obvious drawbacks right now. However, to be fair, I think that even though things are bleak, we have to continue to put up a fight in D.C. There will be huge battles over the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act ... and as we saw from the Arctic debate, we need to make a strong showing, even if we ultimately fail. Nevertheless, I think we are beginning to understand that even when we may be winning some battles on the Hill, we are losing the war. How can you turn something like the politics of environmental protection in Alaska around? Ultimately, I don't think it is going to be by getting more people to walk the halls of Congress -- perhaps more people to walk the roads of Fairbanks?

So here is where I think the risk element comes in. We have to try new strategies and new organizations. And many of these groups may be smaller, newer, less experienced, thus perhaps more "risky" investments. And we may need to expand our time horizons for expecting the "return." It may not be a one-year, two-year, or even three-year horizon, but rather a 10-year frame. That being said, I think for foundations to be able to manage that risk, there still has to be some measure of progress in the intervening period. Indicators of progress might not be the passage of a new bill to protect the Tongass (to use the Alaska analogy again), but rather indicators of social and/or political change that are meaningful.

This brings me to another point that I wanted to raise: theory of change. It may seem like the latest buzzword or obstacle course that foundations force grantees to scramble their way through, but I think it gets to the core of what any organization is trying to achieve. What is the problem? What is the proposed solution, and why do you think your strategies will actually get you there? I sometimes see a disconnect between the stated goal/solution and the strategies, and I think it might get back to the point about entrenchment. For example, on many federal policies we have relied on the public-comment process to have our voices heard. Organizing people to sign letters or send faxes (through an increasingly automated system) worked pretty effectively for a while. Now, however, we are seeing that public comments don't really seem to hold the weight they once did. Thus, the question really is whether the strategy is actually going to move you toward the solution you seek.

I do think organizations are becoming a lot more clever about refining these strategies. Given the current politics, for example, 10,000 letters from New Yorkers or San Franciscans on a given issue might not hold as much weight as 100 letters from local businesses or 1,000 letters from hunters and anglers (as a former and current resident of the stated cities, my apologies!). What I still think we are struggling with as a movement is how to move beyond the one-touch signature process to organizing in a much more meaningful and longer-term manner. Back to our previous conversations, I think this has to be a truly transformative process for our movement.

Foundations need to work with grantees to figure out how to make the short-term and longer-term strategies more effective. This not only requires more creativity on the part of the grantees, but also flexibility on the part of foundations.

---

From: Hooper Brooks
To: Stuart Clarke, Enrique Salmón, Rhea Suh
Subject: Re: In search of new strategies
Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:56 PST

I have had a day of back-to-back meetings, and in that time this discussion has covered quite well just about everything I would have to say about the role of funders. I would add only a few thoughts about how funders can help accelerate adaptive change (in strategies, organizations, coalitions, etc.). They include: investing more time to communicate (succinctly and accessibly) about what funders are supporting and what they are learning from it; developing an open and honest dialogue between funders and grantees about what is working and what isn't; maintaining (to support the first two ideas) a streamlined measurement process to help program officers, boards, and grantees keep track of what actually happens with a grant; and developing collaborations of funders, practitioners, community leaders, elected officials, etc., to clarify challenges and design strategies to address them (this has happened recently with great success in a couple of states that are grappling with the intertwined challenges of smart growth, regional equity, economic competitiveness, and public health).

---

From: Enrique Salmón
To: Hooper Brooks, Stuart Clarke, Rhea Suh
Subject: Re: In search of new strategies
Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:13 p.m. PST

As I read Rhea's and Hooper's comments, I can't help but think about an article in The New York Times I read earlier today by former Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley (N.J.). In the article, Senator Bradley discusses how the Democratic Party needs to begin the long-term process of building a strong coalition of support that resembles a pyramid. The base is made of strong and consistent donors and foundations that support research centers and think tanks. The next levels are occupied by policy matters and politics, and then the media. At the top is the president. This pyramid is in opposition to what he suggests the current Democratic Party resembles, which is a pyramid resting on its point. At the point is usually a charismatic president whom everyone can rally around -- but once the president is out of office, the pyramid collapses.

I think the environmental movement is not that different from the Democratic Party's pyramid. We rally around the latest noun that requires saving or protecting. But once the thing has been declared safe, the pyramid of support falters. This reminds me of Rhea's and Hooper's comments, because both suggest that the environmental movement needs to begin to invest in a long-term approach toward changing how environmentalism and environmentalists are perceived by the general public. Rhea suggests developing a theory of change that requires funders and grantees to really assess what the problems are and what it is going to take to solve them, including a real look at funder collaborations. And then Hooper mentions that funders need to invest more time communicating their strategies and assessing the needs of grantees. Both suggestions reflect long-term goals, and perhaps the need for environmentalism to begin building a solid base of support for its own pyramid -- one that can be woven throughout the social fabric of modern industrialized people.

In this way, perhaps, support for environmentalism becomes transcendent across ideologies. This means, of course, that funders need to start to support seemingly non-environmental projects such as political think tanks, media collaborations, and social-justice issues. Some of this is happening already, but it needs to steadily grow.

- - - - - - - - - -

Hooper Brooks is the program director for the environment at the Surdna Foundation in New York City, a family foundation with assets over $700 million and an 80-year history. The foundation's environment program makes more than $7 million in grants annually to organizations working on transportation, energy, biological diversity, and urban/suburban land-use issues throughout the U.S.

Stuart Clarke is the executive director of the Town Creek Foundation in Easton, Md. For nearly 25 years, Town Creek has supported public education, citizen action, and advocacy to achieve a healthy environment, an informed society, and a peaceful world.

Enrique Salmón, Ph.D., is a program officer for The Christensen Fund, an independent private foundation that supports bio-cultural projects worldwide. His primary funding region is the greater Southwest of the United States and northwest Mexico. He is a Tarahumara Indian.

Rhea Suh is a program officer with the environment program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, where she manages the Western grants portfolio. She currently serves on the Environmental Grantmakers Association board, and has been its chair and vice chair.