Flawed Processes, Watered Down Advocacy, Persistent Problems
Right on, Ben!
Just because you were a soldier and you fought for a cause, without being able to define it, does not mean you are a just man. Just because you were paid to speak out on behalf of a cause and obeyed the letter of the law while ignoring justice at every turn you may not call yourself an advocate of integrity. If you come to the end of your life and find yourself without enemies, that does not make you beloved or effective, it simpy means you stood for convenience over justice.
Conventional wisdom of the day dictates that the best way to reach an identified "goal" or objective within a given policy or legislative framework is to form an Advocacy Coalition. Such a coalition, following said standard practice, necessitates the gathering of a broad slate of "stakeholders" drawn from both within the issue itself (those experiencing a given problem or problems), as well as, those to found around the periphery of the issue area proper. Having formed such a Coalition (and I formed many over the years, across a wide range of issues), a gathering or convocation of identified "stakeholders" must be called. Of course this process is, first and foremost, contingent upon the presence of funding....for we have forgotten that for most of the history of the United States advocacy effort after advocacy effort formed and proceeded on very little or nothing. Once a convocation of the identified Advocacy Coalition has been called into being the next step is to identify a set of goals or aims for which the group will advocate.
Having identified a legislative or policy set of objectives or goals the group is summoned to participate in a discussion group or meeting--and it must be remembered here that no such aggrupation will ever come together with "major stakeholders" in the absence of funding. And for such funding to be made available most grassroots efforts will almost certainly already be compromised. Said compromise will, of course, be made in the name of 'incremental change", political expediency, "strategic thinking" or "objective-oriented planning". Now it would be patently idiotic to assert that social justice advocacy should be bereft of strategy, that it should be blind to poltiical realities, that there is no need to consider consensus-building. But the language utilized within today's advocacy continuum is not the language of social justice, it is not an impassioned language, charged with vitriol and seeking not compromise but the justice of an ultimate and defined victory.It is a language proscribed (and sanctioned) by those quite comfortable with keeping things just as they are.
Still, the rhetoric is enticing, the ostensible end-game seductive. So enticing, so seductive that, even for those of us who have worked within the broad advocacy and foundation infrastructure--forever allied with parallel Federal and State Agencies--that one fails to notice a few very salient facts with regard to what is going on "out there": thirty years and trillions of dollars pumped into the work around homelessness and there are more homeless and marginally housed now thna ever, a plethora of agencies working on justice reform and nary a dent made, the utterly futile "War on Drugs" and the continuing and unabated availability of controlled substances, the struggles of those suffering from mental health disorders and the prevailing ignorance of the majority of the American public (and professional sectors), the pernioious and yet pervasive stink of racial inequity, the wide range of problems suffered by veterans. The aim of extant mainstream advocay efforts is not to eradicate these problems, it is to perpetuate them. The absence of those with personal experience from the upper echelons of the decision-making processes, at all levels of government and within the private sector advocacy infrastrutcute does one thing: ensure that effort after effort will proceed with a dispassionate and measured focus on "effectiveness" and "incrementalism" all the while losing sight of the fact that not much of anything has been "fixed" at all. We have removed the element of personal experience from the advocacy continuum and thereby ensured a continual stream of the disaffected who may be researched and represented, but never really "helped". We control issues instead of fighting for the eradication of abiding social problems. We do that for one underlying reason: no money in it if we do otherwise, period.
In September 1971, in connection with the debate over the United States Anti- Ballistic Missile System, an ad hoc committee for the Operations Research Society of America [ORSA, 1971] published a set of guidelines for doing scientific research. The ORSA committee members were concerned that many people who claim to be scientists operate in violation of these guidelines. Their feelings could be summarized as follows: Most so-called scientists either do not understand or cannot bring themselves to follow the scientific method. They solve problems in a biased fashion just as non-scientists do. The result is that most of the scientific literature is pure garbage. Worse yet, the scientists cannot even recognize it as garbage. The committee felt that publication of the guidelines was unlikely to have a significant effect on the behavior of scientists. To give their report some impact, the committee tried to generate a controversy over the guidelines by publishing papers under the fictitious name of Ian Mitroff. (Mitroff is Russian slang for hoax.)
This paper reports the initial findings of a multi- year, multi- investigator project designed to answer a number of questions about how groups affect public policy and whose interests are most often heard in the halls of government. We provide full documentation and data from our project on our web site: http://lobby.la.psu.edu and encourage readers of this paper to visit the site before or after reading this paper. The paper describes our research program, progress to date, and focuses on some preliminary findings concerning the sources of stability and instability in the lobbying and advocacy process. Many forces act to enforce stability in politics. However, each of our randomly chosen cases of lobbying is at least potentially multi-dimensional. That is, each issue can be understood in many conflicting ways. Predicting how political actors will react to these conflicting underlying dimensions is therefore not so easy. We explore these issues of multi-dimensionality and politics here while introducing readers to our large multi- year research project.
A prior experimental evaluation of a community-based advocacy program for women with abusive partners demonstrated positive change in the lives of women even 2 years postintervention (C. M. Sullivan & D. I. Bybee, 1999). The current study explored the complex mediational process through which this change occurred, using longitudinal structural equation modeling and formal tests of mediation. As hypothesized, the advocacy intervention first resulted in women successfully obtaining desired community resources and increasing their social support, which enhanced their overall quality of life. This improvement in well-being appeared to serve as a protective factor from subsequent abuse, as women who received the intervention were significantly less likely to be abused at 2-year follow-up compared with women in the control condition. Increased quality of life completely mediated the impact of the advocacy intervention on later reabuse. Discussion places advocacy for women in the context of other efforts that are needed to build an effective community response to preventing intimate violence against women.
Theories of collective action have undergone a number of paradigm shifts, from “mass behavior” to “resource mobilization,” “political process,” and “new social movements.” Debates have centered on the applicability of these frameworks in diverse settings, on the periodization of collective action, on the divisive or unifying impact of identity politics, and on the appropriateness of political engagement by researchers. Transnational activist networks are developing new protest repertoires that challenge anthropologists and other scholars to rethink conventional approaches to social movements.
Boards and individual trustees are often unpleasantly reminded of aspects of their responsibilities that had never been sufficiently spelled out. The recent case of Adelphi University, a private college on Long Island whose board was ousted for allegedly mismanaging its assets, is a case in point. The board was evidently unaware that a series of legislative enactments dating back to the 1780s had created a regulatory body — the Regents of the University of the State of New York — that measured the board’s behavior by a different and more demanding standard than would have been used by the state’s attorney general. Similarly, a decade ago, the board members of Pennsylvania nonprofits were shocked to discover that the tax exemptions their organizations enjoyed were not absolute — but were subject to review by local tax authorities. Incidents like these suggest that understanding why boards exist requires a more than passing examination of the past.
Advocacy is about enabling people’s views and wishes to be heard (Atkinson, 1999). In the literature, two fundamental advocacy models have been identified: citizen advocacy and self-advocacy. Citizen advocacy is where relatively powerful individuals seek to understand the views and wishes of less powerful people and represent them to a third party, such as a policy-maker, as if they were their own (O’Brien, 1987). Self-advocacy seeks to involve individuals who share common experiences of oppression in self-advocacy support groups in order to empower them to engage with, and change, the structures that oppress them (Hodgson, 1995).
This article reviews the current state of public policy theory to find out if researchers are ready to readdress the research agenda set by the classic works of Baumgartner and Jones (1993), Kingdon (1984) and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993). After reviewing the influences of institutional, rational choice, network, socio-economic and ideational approaches, the article pays tribute to the policy streams, punctuated equilibrium and policy advocacy coalition frameworks whilst also suggesting that future theory and research could identify more precisely the causal mechanisms driving policy change. The article argues that evolutionary theory may usefully uncover the micro-level processes at work, particularly as some the three frameworks refer to dymamic models and methods. After reviewing some evolutionary game theory and the study of memes, the article suggests that the benefits of evolutionary theory in extending policy theories need to be balanced by its limitations.
Although social justice is a concept inherent in many advocacy efforts, it often remains unspoken or is ignored during the evaluation process. In some ways, the use of a social justice lens when evaluating advocacy should be self-evident. If advocacy efforts aim for social justice outcomes, evaluations should look for evidence that such outcomes have been achieved. But understanding just what social justice means can be a challenge, as can knowing how to look for it in the context of complex and often long-term advocacy efforts. This brief offers ideas on how to incorporate the concept of social justice and its underlying values into advocacy evaluation. It points to ways in which social justice values should influence what evaluators examine in terms of advocacy goals, theories of change, outcomes, and strategies. It also considers how the evaluation process itself can promote social justice values.
Abstract: This article examines changes in the distribution of national women's and minority membership organizations since 1955, emphasizing the increasing legitimacy of the adlJocacy form of organization and the consequent replacement of service provision as the dominant mode of activity. Using data on the founding and disbanding of national women's and minority organizations since 1955, I argue that Hannan and Freeman's (1989; Hannan & Carroll 1992) theory of density-dependent legitimation and competition, and its extension to cross-effects among organizations, provides a framework of understanding the contemporary development of social change organizations. Though institutional and resource factors are important, they do not fully account for organizational vital rates. Findings indicate that increases in both service and protest organizations promoted the expansion of advocacy groups. As this middle-of-the-road stmtegy became more legitimate, competition became the predominant mode of interorganizational relationship. This accounts for the growth in the number of advocacy organizations after 1970, as well as the leveling off of service and protest organizations.
Nonprofit organizations are often a tool by which citizens can engage in the policy process. Many nonprofit organizations engage in issue advocacy. For some nonprofit organizations issue advocacy is the purpose for their existence. For others, issue advocacy is a means of meeting organizational goals. Many nonprofits avoid issue advocacy altogether. The IRS places a financial limit on how much issue advocacy a nonprofit organization may engage in. However, most nonprofits won’t ever come close to this limit. Most simply don’t have as great a need for advocacy, while some will self regulate to avoid losing funding sources. Some literature suggests that there is a negative relationship between some funding sources and the level of advocacy a nonprofit is willing to engage in. Literature from the field is researched to present a study of nonprofit advocacy, their structures and methods, and the political and financial environment within which they operate. Using data from IRS Form 990 this study then analyzes the relationship between lobbying expenses and funding sources. The funding sources studied are direct public support, indirect public support, government grants, program service revenue, and membership fees and assessments. The study finds a statistically significant positive relationship between several sources of funding (direct public support, indirect public support, and program service revenue) and the level of lobbying expenses reported. The study does not find any statistically significant negative impact of funding source on advocacy activity. Further conclusions are problematic, however, due to limitations in the research design. To truly focus on how nonprofits engage citizens in the policy process through advocacy activities and how they self regulate to protect funding sources will require further research with more and richer data. A recommendation for further studies is made in the conclusion of this paper.
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States
In a time of policy devolution, social workers have a unique opportunity to develop a significant voice in constructing state social welfare policy. This article examines a method of collaborative policy advocacy led by social work researchers, practitioners, advocates, and students. It is illustrated with a five-year project to reduce wealth inequality through community economic development. Researchers brought expertise in ideas and analysis to real world applications. Social work practitioners brought essential “on the ground” expertise. Students brought much-needed assistance and a fresh perspective to the social policy process. Advocates, working in social welfare advocacy organizations, bridged these perspectives and provided experience in policy advocacy. Working with coalition partners, social workers successfully placed asset-based community economic development strategies on the state agenda and were instrumental in passage of innovative legislation. The article demonstrates that the policy-making process is open to influence by social workers, especially if they come prepared with innovative and promising ideas about long-standing social issues. Social workers can and should take the lead and become significant actors in state policy development.
Evaluating policy advocacy grantmaking requires an approach distinct from more traditional social service program evaluations. Because policymaking is a slow process influenced by a myriad of factors, it is difficult to determine what effect any particular funder or grantee may have had on the policy outcome. However, there are a number of ways that grantmakers can discern whether efforts are on the right track towards achieving policy objectives. By identifying the incremental steps that lead to policy change, funders can determine appropriate performance measures. Factors such as a growth in civic participation, changes in public perceptions, stronger community networks, increased policymaker support, and improved organizational capacity are all necessary to create policy change, and can be measured quantitatively and/or qualitatively. These factors are critical not only to a particular policy change, but also to ensuring that policy victories are maintained and expanded on for lasting social change. Funders must bear in mind that while a particular policy objective may not have been achieved, grantmaker support may have laid the groundwork for future victories. Evaluations which assess not only policy outcomes but also the means of achieving them reflect a more accurate picture of grantee and grantor performance.
In a world in which inequality is growing and where poverty, prejudice, and oppression are the dominant reality of well over two billion people, most from marginalized groups and communities in the Global South, "social justice" and "leadership" are both of critical importance. Not surprisingly, both of these are complex and challenging—not only to achieve, but even to define. Yet people in many different contexts around the world, using a wide range of strategies, are demonstrating the courage and commitment necessary to create solutions to social injustices. And in so doing, they are challenging dominant concepts about how leadership is developed and exercised.
Governments contract with human service nonprofit organizations to deliver pivotal services to individuals, families, and communities. The U.S. economic recession has depleted many nonprofit budgets while increasing the demand for their services. Many state governments—which are large providers of government contracts and grants—are in a fiscal crisis.1 As a result, many nonprofits were forced to freeze or reduce salaries, draw on reserves, or scale back their operations. Each state is faced with unique financial challenges and employs different policies and procedures which are affecting the nonprofit-government contracting relationships in various ways. This report provides state by state data on government contracts and grants with human service nonprofits, problems encountered, and the effect of the recession.
Governments contract with human service nonprofit organizations to deliver pivotal services to individuals and communities, such as food assistance, housing, employment training, youth mentoring, child care, and many more. While these organizations derive their revenues from a mix of funding sources, many rely heavily on government grants and contracts. Despite the prevalence and importance of government contracting, there is little information on its scope and effectiveness. Recent anecdotal press reports, regional studies, and small surveys, however, portray a variety of problems related to government contracting, especially in the context of the current recession (Bureau of Contracts 2010; Deffley and Pratt 2009; DiNapoli 2010).
As watchdog for the philanthropic sector, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has a special role in promoting, critiquing and building a progressive philanthropic movement by helping foundations to more effectively serve populations that are the least well off politically, economically and socially. While many who work for foundations recognize that their grant-making has an impact on disadvantaged nonprofits and constituents, it is difficult to determine whether their grants effect lasting change. Does philanthropic support help move society toward economic, political and social Fairness? Does making society fairer improve the condition of those who are worse off or does it exacerbate existing problems? Does grant-making promote greater access in the economic, social and political arenas for people who are excluded?
Gambill on Justice
Veterans, Data Privacy, Process of Advocacy, La America Latina, Homelessness, Mass Institutionalization, First Nations
The Process of Advocacy
Non-profits, advocacy coalitions, foundations: How to NOT change the status quo
The Process of Advocacy
Para la versión en español hazle clic aqui
---Canto LXXXI, Ezra Pound
Flawed Processes, Watered Down Advocacy, Persistent Problems
Just because you were a soldier and you fought for a cause, without being able to define it, does not mean you are a just man. Just because you were paid to speak out on behalf of a cause and obeyed the letter of the law while ignoring justice at every turn you may not call yourself an advocate of integrity. If you come to the end of your life and find yourself without enemies, that does not make you beloved or effective, it simpy means you stood for convenience over justice.
Conventional wisdom of the day dictates that the best way to reach an identified "goal" or objective within a given policy or legislative framework is to form an Advocacy Coalition. Such a coalition, following said standard practice, necessitates the gathering of a broad slate of "stakeholders" drawn from both within the issue itself (those experiencing a given problem or problems), as well as, those to found around the periphery of the issue area proper. Having formed such a Coalition (and I formed many over the years, across a wide range of issues), a gathering or convocation of identified "stakeholders" must be called. Of course this process is, first and foremost, contingent upon the presence of funding....for we have forgotten that for most of the history of the United States advocacy effort after advocacy effort formed and proceeded on very little or nothing. Once a convocation of the identified Advocacy Coalition has been called into being the next step is to identify a set of goals or aims for which the group will advocate.
Having identified a legislative or policy set of objectives or goals the group is summoned to participate in a discussion group or meeting--and it must be remembered here that no such aggrupation will ever come together with "major stakeholders" in the absence of funding. And for such funding to be made available most grassroots efforts will almost certainly already be compromised. Said compromise will, of course, be made in the name of 'incremental change", political expediency, "strategic thinking" or "objective-oriented planning". Now it would be patently idiotic to assert that social justice advocacy should be bereft of strategy, that it should be blind to poltiical realities, that there is no need to consider consensus-building. But the language utilized within today's advocacy continuum is not the language of social justice, it is not an impassioned language, charged with vitriol and seeking not compromise but the justice of an ultimate and defined victory. It is a language proscribed (and sanctioned) by those quite comfortable with keeping things just as they are.
Still, the rhetoric is enticing, the ostensible end-game seductive. So enticing, so seductive that, even for those of us who have worked within the broad advocacy and foundation infrastructure--forever allied with parallel Federal and State Agencies--that one fails to notice a few very salient facts with regard to what is going on "out there": thirty years and trillions of dollars pumped into the work around homelessness and there are more homeless and marginally housed now thna ever, a plethora of agencies working on justice reform and nary a dent made, the utterly futile "War on Drugs" and the continuing and unabated availability of controlled substances, the struggles of those suffering from mental health disorders and the prevailing ignorance of the majority of the American public (and professional sectors), the pernioious and yet pervasive stink of racial inequity, the wide range of problems suffered by veterans. The aim of extant mainstream advocay efforts is not to eradicate these problems, it is to perpetuate them. The absence of those with personal experience from the upper echelons of the decision-making processes, at all levels of government and within the private sector advocacy infrastrutcute does one thing: ensure that effort after effort will proceed with a dispassionate and measured focus on "effectiveness" and "incrementalism" all the while losing sight of the fact that not much of anything has been "fixed" at all. We have removed the element of personal experience from the advocacy continuum and thereby ensured a continual stream of the disaffected who may be researched and represented, but never really "helped". We control issues instead of fighting for the eradication of abiding social problems. We do that for one underlying reason: no money in it if we do otherwise, period.
The Reverand Martin Luther King, Jr.
Andrews, Kenneth T. and Bob Edwards, Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. Political Process Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, (2004), pp. 479-506, Published by: Annual Reviews
A prior experimental evaluation of a community-based advocacy program for women with abusive partners demonstrated positive change in the lives of women even 2 years postintervention (C. M. Sullivan & D. I. Bybee, 1999). The current study explored the complex mediational process through which this change occurred, using longitudinal structural equation modeling and formal tests of mediation. As hypothesized, the advocacy intervention first resulted in women successfully obtaining desired community resources and increasing their social support, which enhanced their overall quality of life. This improvement in well-being appeared to serve as a protective factor from subsequent abuse, as women who received the intervention were significantly less likely to be abused at 2-year follow-up compared with women in the control condition. Increased quality of life completely mediated the impact of the advocacy intervention on later reabuse. Discussion places advocacy for women in the context of other efforts that are needed to build an effective community response to preventing intimate violence against women.
John, Peter, Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change? The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2003
This article reviews the current state of public policy theory to find out if researchers are ready to readdress the research agenda set by the classic works of Baumgartner and Jones (1993), Kingdon (1984) and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993). After reviewing the influences of institutional, rational choice, network, socio-economic and ideational approaches, the article pays tribute to the policy streams, punctuated equilibrium and policy advocacy coalition frameworks whilst also suggesting that future theory and research could identify more precisely the causal mechanisms driving policy change. The article argues that evolutionary theory may usefully uncover the micro-level processes at work, particularly as some the three frameworks refer to dymamic models and methods. After reviewing some evolutionary game theory and the study of memes, the article suggests that the benefits of evolutionary theory in extending policy theories need to be balanced by its limitations.
Klugman, Barbara, Evaluating Social Justice Advocacy, A Values Based Approach, Case Study Brief Series, May 2010
Minkoff, Debra, From Service Provision to Institutional Advocacy: The Shifting Legitimacy of Organizational Forms, Yale University, the University of North Carolina Press, Social Forces, June 1994, 72(4) 943-969.
Naylor, Sean Patrick, Funding Source Impact on Nonprofit Advocacy Activity, March, 2011
Nonprofit organizations are often a tool by which citizens can engage in the policy process. Many nonprofit organizations engage in issue advocacy. For some nonprofit organizations issue advocacy is the purpose for their existence. For others, issue advocacy is a means of meeting organizational goals. Many nonprofits avoid issue advocacy altogether. The IRS places a financial limit on how much issue advocacy a nonprofit organization may engage in. However, most nonprofits won’t ever come close to this limit. Most simply don’t have as great a need for advocacy, while some will self regulate to avoid losing funding sources. Some literature suggests that there is a negative relationship between some funding sources and the level of advocacy a nonprofit is willing to engage in. Literature from the field is researched to present a study of nonprofit advocacy, their structures and methods, and the political and financial environment within which they operate. Using data from IRS Form 990 this study then analyzes the relationship between lobbying expenses and funding sources. The funding sources studied are direct public support, indirect public support, government grants, program service revenue, and membership fees and assessments. The study finds a statistically significant positive relationship between several sources of funding (direct public support, indirect public support, and program service revenue) and the level of lobbying expenses reported. The study does not find any statistically significant negative impact of funding source on advocacy activity. Further conclusions are problematic, however, due to limitations in the research design. To truly focus on how nonprofits engage citizens in the policy process through advocacy activities and how they self regulate to protect funding sources will require further research with more and richer data. A recommendation for further studies is made in the conclusion of this paper.
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States
Sherraden, Margaret S., Innovation in Social Policy: Collaborative Policy Advocacy, National Assoc. of Social Workers, Advocacy 209 CCC Code: 0037-8046/02 ©2002
In a time of policy devolution, social workers have a unique opportunity to develop a significant voice in constructing state social welfare policy. This article examines a method of collaborative policy advocacy led by social work researchers, practitioners, advocates, and students. It is illustrated with a five-year project to reduce wealth inequality through community economic development. Researchers brought expertise in ideas and analysis to real world applications. Social work practitioners brought essential “on the ground” expertise. Students brought much-needed assistance and a fresh perspective to the social policy process. Advocates, working in social welfare advocacy organizations, bridged these perspectives and provided experience in policy advocacy. Working with coalition partners, social workers successfully placed asset-based community economic development strategies on the state agenda and were instrumental in passage of innovative legislation. The article demonstrates that the policy-making process is open to influence by social workers, especially if they come prepared with innovative and promising ideas about long-standing social issues. Social workers can and should take the lead and become significant actors in state policy development.
Snowdon, Ashley, Evaluating Philanthropic Support of Public Policy Advocacy: A Resource for Funders, Goldman School of Public Policy University of California Berkeley, ©2004 Northern California Grantmakers, May 2004
Urban Institute, National Study of Nonprofit-Government Contracting State Profiles, (Elizabeth T. Boris, Erwin de Leon, Katie L. Roeger, and Milena Nikolova), Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, 2009
Governments contract with human service nonprofit organizations to deliver pivotal services to individuals, families, and communities. The U.S. economic recession has depleted many nonprofit budgets while increasing the demand for their services. Many state governments—which are large providers of government contracts and grants—are in a fiscal crisis.1 As a result, many nonprofits were forced to freeze or reduce salaries, draw on reserves, or scale back their operations. Each state is faced with unique financial challenges and employs different policies and procedures which are affecting the nonprofit-government contracting relationships in various ways. This report provides state by state data on government contracts and grants with human service nonprofits, problems encountered, and the effect of the recession.
Urban Institute, Contracts and Grants between Human Service Nonprofits and Governments, (Elizabeth T. Boris, Erwin de Leon, Katie L. Roeger, and Milena Nikolova). Center on Non-profits and Philanthropy, Brief 25, Oct., 2010
Governments contract with human service nonprofit organizations to deliver pivotal services to individuals and communities, such as food assistance, housing, employment training, youth mentoring, child care, and many more. While these organizations derive their revenues from a mix of funding sources, many rely heavily on government grants and contracts. Despite the prevalence and importance of government contracting, there is little information on its scope and effectiveness. Recent anecdotal press reports, regional studies, and small surveys, however, portray a variety of problems related to government contracting, especially in the context of the current recession (Bureau of Contracts 2010; Deffley and Pratt 2009; DiNapoli 2010).
The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution
Understanding Social Justice Philanthropy, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, May, 2003
As watchdog for the philanthropic sector, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has a special role in promoting, critiquing and building a progressive philanthropic movement by helping foundations to more effectively serve populations that are the least well off politically, economically and socially. While many who work for foundations recognize that their grant-making has an impact on disadvantaged nonprofits and constituents, it is difficult to determine whether their grants effect lasting change. Does philanthropic support help move society toward economic, political and social Fairness? Does making society fairer improve the condition of those who are worse off or does it exacerbate existing problems? Does grant-making promote greater access in the economic, social and political arenas for people who are excluded?