PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT OF CHILD ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

For the conceptual and methodological reasons described earlier, it is difficult to track overall foundation giving to children and youth, and more difficult still to determine the amounts that individual foundations invest in child advocacy organizations. Foundations themselves do not report their grants by beneficiary group, so grants benefitting children may be spread out across multiple areas such as health, education or human services.

Still, data compiled by the Foundation Center provide a rough indication of grant dollars awarded to children and youth. According to the 1998 edition of the Grants for Children & Youth, foundations invested $2.1 billion to benefit infants, children and youth, mostly in 1996 and 1997 (The Foundation Center 1998). [8] Assuming that these grants were fairly evenly distributed across these two years, just over $1 billion was invested in 1996 by 896 foundations for whom the Foundation Center maintains grants data. As a point of comparison, the American Association of Fund Raising Counsel reported that total giving by private and corporate foundations in 1996 was $19.6 billion (1998). Weiss and Lopez provide an alternative number in their recent examination of grantmaking strategies for children and youth. Based on estimates provided by 19 major national foundation, they report that approximately $569 million was invested to benefit children and youth in 1996, roughly half of that reported by the Foundation Center (1998).

Snapshots of Giving in the 1990s. Relative to these figures, grantmaking foundations directed only a small percentage of their funds to national and state-based child advocacy organizations in the two years for which grants information was developed. The data show that foundations awarded a total of $24 million in 1991 and $58.4 million in 1996 to 103 of the original 157 child advocacy organizations identified for inclusion in the study (see table 1). The latter figure was greatly inflated, however, by a $19.5 million grant that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation awarded to the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids. If excluded from the analysis, giving to national and state-based CAOs in 1996 totaled only $38.9 million. This is less than 4 percent of the $1.1 billion that foundations provided in that year to benefit infants, children and youth and roughly 7 percent of the total estimated amount that just 19 major foundations awarded to child and youth-serving entities.

An additional $3.3 million in 1991 grants and $7.1 million in 1996 grants was awarded to four national organizations providing relevant information resources to national and state-based child advocates across the country. These organizations include the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center for Law and Social Policy, Food Research and Action Center, and the Welfare Law Center.

When examined from the multiple vantage points of issue focus, type of beneficiary organization, national versus local investments, grant type awarded, and range of activities supported, the funding picture is even more troubling. Based on the 1996 grants analysis, [*] for example, the foundations that did invest in child advocacy organizations showed a preference to fund relatively non-controversial issues (e.g., tobacco use reduction or child abuse prevention), national child advocacy organizations, and single-issue (or single-strategy) organizations.

Funding by Issue Area. Tobacco use prevention was the issue receiving the most foundation support, owing to an exceptionally large $19.5 million grant awarded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids. The reform of elementary and secondary education was the issue receiving the second highest support, with foundations awarding $8.2 million in grants for this purpose, with most of this money directed to organizations whose primary mission focused on k-12 education rather than to child advocacy organizations working on multiple issues at the national or state levels. This was followed by child protection and systems reform ($5,779,830), and health care ($1.7 million). Welfare reform ($880,605), child care ($732,000), and budget advocacy ($667,500) received far less support.

Type of Recipient. The grants analysis also revealed a funding preference either for national child advocates or for single-issue or single-strategy organizations, whether at the state or national levels. Out of the 103 recipient organizations, just 27 national organizations received $39.5 million, or 68 percent, of the total amount invested by foundations in 1996. If the $19.5 million grant to the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids is excluded, the percentage remains high, at 35 percent.

Foundations directed $21.1 (36 percent) out of $58.3 million to multi-issue organizations using a mix of advocacy strategies to improve children's well-being. Most of these grants, however, were not awarded as general operating support but rather n a project-specific (and therefore issue-oriented) basis. Of this amount, $12.3 million was awarded to 49 state-based child advocates (which averages to $233,421 per organization) and $8.8 million to national multi-issue organizations. The remaining $37.2 million supported mostly national groups focusing within a single issue area or working to impact child welfare primarily through litigation. Examples include the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kid ($19.9 million), the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse ($3.3 million), and the Youth Law Center ($1.7 million).

General Operating versus Project-Specific Support. With respect to the types of grants awarded, foundations mostly invested in child advocacy organizations on a project-specific rather than general support basis. Interestingly, foundations gave a significantly higher percentage of their grants as general operating support in 1991 than they did in 1996, at 29 percent and 8 percent respectively. This was also the case with respect to organizational development grants, with foundations providing 11 percent of their 1991 grants and 6 percent of their 1996 grants to support such activities as strategic planning and staff development. Conversely, project-specific grantmaking increased from 50 percent in 1991 to 79 percent in 1996.

The decline in general operating and organizational development support may reflect what many perceive to be foundations' increasing tendency to engage in Astrategic grantmaking through the design and implementation their own program initiatives. The issue of general operating versus project-specific support is important for many reasons relating to the ability of advocacy organizations to adapt and respond to shifting political or policy circumstances, take advantage of new opportunities, and/or make necessary institutional or organizational adjustments based on their own experience and learning curves.

Type of Activities Funded. Further data analysis suggests that foundations appear to be far more comfortable funding what might be termed Asoft (e.g., general information dissemination) rather than Ahard (e.g., direct or grassroots lobbying) forms of public policy advocacy. Although, at 45 percent and 20 percent respectively, a significant portion of the 1991 and 1996 grants included in this analysis could not be coded by activity due to insufficient grants information, the data show that foundations vastly increased their giving to public education and media outreach projects, with funding for this purpose increasing from only $543,000 in 1991 to $22.6 million in 1996. While it cannot be ascertained from the grants data whether these funding patterns more closely reflect the strategic priorities or project interests of foundations or child advocates, there appears to be a fairly strong operating assumption that media work and other information dissemination strategies lead to effective public and legislative action. [9]

Foundations did increase their giving in what are often considered by advocates to be key -- but often underfunded -- areas of advocacy activity. Support for leadership development and advocacy training, for example, increased from $366,795 in 1991 to $2,571,500 in 1996. Constituency building efforts were also funded at significantly higher levels, with only $60,000 provided for this purpose in 1991 and $3.3 million in 1996. And government monitoring and policy impact projects also received greater support, increasing from $869,200 in 1991 to $1.5 million in 1996.

Geographic Distribution of Grants. The grants data also show a high degree of geographic concentration. Of the $24 million that foundations invested in child advocacy organizations in 1991, $18.3 million, or 76 percent, was directed to organizations in just five states (California, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York) and the District of Columbia. An even higher concentration of grant dollars occurred in 1996, with organizations in these same five states and the District of Columbia receiving $48.7 million, or 84 percent, of the $58.3 million invested overall.

Comparison to What is Known About Previous Years. Based on the available data, it appears that child advocacy organizations are far more reliant today on foundation support than in early decades. Indeed, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, child advocacy was heavily, and sometimes exclusively, government supported. According to Kahn, Kamerman and McGowan (1972), the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) was one of the single largest sources of public support, spending more than $7.5 million on 64 advocacy programs in FY 1972. The range of activities that Kahn, Kamerman and McGowan then included under the child advocacy label was quite broad, consisting not only of such traditional advocacy activities as lobbying, litigation and administrative negotiating, but also community planning, neighborhood-based service interventions, and even individual client counseling and referral. Federal funding of these activities were entirely consistent with national urban policy, which placed resident participation, community action, and decentralized service delivery at the conceptual core of government anti-poverty objectives.

While there has been little detailed historical examination of philanthropic support of child advocacy organizations, one longitudinal study of social movement philanthropy found that child advocacy organizations received a total of $12.2 million in foundation grants between 1953 and 1980 (Jenkins and Halcli 1994). This amount represents 5 percent of the $245.5 million that foundations awarded to social movement organizations over the 28 year time period examined. Jenkins and Halcli's data also show considerable fluctuation in child advocacy funding, with 1.21 percent of social movement grants awarded to child advocacy organizations in 1970, 8 percent in 1980, and 3.9 percent in 1990.

END NOTES

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[*] The analysis that follows largely concentrates on the 1996 grants data due to the fact that 50 percent of the 1991 grants data could not be coded by issue area due to insufficient grants information. Still, based on the more limited information provided, the two most heavily funded issues in 1991 were k-12 education reform ($2.4 million) and child abuse prevention and systems reform ($2.4 million). As in 1996, welfare reform and child care were issues receiving far less support.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[8]. This figure covers foundation grants made to support services and activities for infants, children, and youth to age 18: neonatal care; child welfare, including adoption, foster care, and prevention of child abuse; child development; prevention and rehabilitation for juvenile delinquency; pregnancy counseling and prevention programs; adolescent parent services; pediatrics and children's hospitals; and children's museums. Also included are youth development services; youth centers and clubs; adult/child matching programs; scouting organizations, and various youth development organizations (The Foundation Center, 1998, iii).

[9]. To a certain extent, public education and media outreach appear to be funded as a proxy for constituency building, with little strategic or analytic attention given to the fact that media, public, governmental, and electoral issue agendas are Aonly loosely connected to each other and governed by their own incentive structures, processes, and gatekeepers (McCarthy, Smith and Zald 1996).