The Decline of Progressive Policy and the New Philanthropy, by Robert O. Bothwell

Contents | Progressive Policy Making In Decline | A  Dissenting View On The Diminution Of Progressive Policy Making | Why Has There Been A Diminution Of Progressive Policy Making? | What Has Philanthropy Done To Counter The Decline Of Progressive Policy? | The Origins And Growth Of Progressive Foundations | The Creation And Growth Of New Private Funding Institutions | Summary And Conclusions | Can Philanthropy be Reformed?

The Creation And Growth Of New Private Funding Institutions As Alternatives To Mainline Philanthropy.

  1.  Introduction

American foundation philanthropy grew enormously over the past two decades. From 1980 to 1999, the number of grant-making foundations more than doubled to 50,200. During the 1990s, as the stock market mushroomed, foundation assets grew from $142 billion in 1990 to a record high of $449 billion in 1999, according to The Foundation Center. Private foundations, legally required to pay out annually 5% of assets, therefore, were required to pay out much more in total grants than required in 1990. Indeed, the stock market spurt provided income to expand all foundation grants threefold, from $8.7 billion in 1990 to $27.6 billion in 2000.(137)

Microsoft's Bill Gates and wife Melinda made big headlines by putting enough money into their foundation that it surpassed the Ford Foundation as the largest in the U.S. Other technological wizards who became wealthy also made headlines when creating their own new foundations. But while the philanthropic sector and the media have made much of the growth of mainline foundations, the new technology-begat foundations, and conservative foundations' funding of a nonprofit infrastructure for the conservative political movement, little to no attention has been focused on the creation and growth of alternative funding institutions for progressive social change.

As previously noted, momentous events took place in the USA during the 1960s which gave rise to aggressive and successful contemporary social movements, which in turn stimulated creation of both the new progressive foundations discussed above and new alternative new private funding institutions. They were designed to be more responsive to the social movements than mainline liberal foundations and United Ways. The new private funding institutions spawned by this tumultuous decade focus on people in poverty, racial/ethnic minorities, women, progressive social activism and the environment. They constitute an important new philanthropic phenomenon and, along with the new progressive foundations, have become serious alternatives to mainline philanthropy in funding progressive social change. In this section, the alternative new funding institutions will be discussed summarily, then each type alternative in detail, followed by a summary and conclusions.

  1. Alternative Funding Institutions Provide $106 Million For Progressive Social Change from 248 Individual Funds in 1998

The author's recent research reveals that there are now around 248 of these new private funding institutions. They are religious grant-makers, "alternative funds" and alternative community foundations who generally raise and provide money for progressive social change. The 248 institutions are estimated to have granted or distributed $106 million circa 1998.(138) This is a philanthropic phenomenon that no one could have predicted, because 30 years ago, few of the alternatives existed. See Table 1 below.


Type of Fund Number of Funds $ Granted/ Distributed -- millions Year Primary Focus Year First Established
Religious Funders 13 $26.3u 1998 Community-Based Organizations 1959
Black United Funds 23 $ 4.6u 1998 African-Americans 1969
Social Action Funds 44 $ 6.7 1997 Social Action 1970
Women's Funds 73 $15.9u 1998 Women and Girls 1972
Alternative Community Foundations: Funding Exchange foundations 16 $13.2 1998 Community-Based Organizations 1972
Alternative Community Foundations: Tides Foundation 1 $20.0 1998 Community-Based Organizations: National Regional and Local 1976
Native American Foundations/Funds 32 $ 3.5 1994 Native Americans 1973?
Lesbian/Gay Foundations 17 $ 1.6 1998 Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transsexuals 1979
Environmental Federatns 20 $12.8 1997 Environment 1982
Hispanic Funds 6 $ 0.9 1997 Hispanics 1980s
Asian Pacific Community Funds 3 $ 0.3 1997 Asian-Pacific Americans 1980s
TOTALS 248 $105.8+      

u = Undercounted are the dollars for Women's Funds, Black United Funds and religious funders, as several funds provided no data.

Table Sources: (1) Robert O. Bothwell, "Alternative Funding Institutions Have Become Serious Competitors with Mainline Foundations in Funding Progressive Social Change," unpublished paper, Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Jan. 25, 2001. (2)

To appreciate the $106 million, consider that 12 leading conservative foundations made grants totaling $210 million over three years, 1992-1994, for development and support of nonprofit infrastructure organizations, such as Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, for the conservative public policy movement.(139) That averages out to $70 million a year.

The alternative funding institutions would generally describe their grantmaking or member distributions in the very same way as the National Network of Grantmakers defines "social change" grantmaking, as "reaching those who are in greatest need of help by giving them the power and opportunity to solve their own problems." (140) But as Susan Ostrander observes, "Not all the women's fund money goes change." (141) And as noted below, some grants of the Native American foundations/funds are for scholarships. Nevertheless, the author's professional experience of 25 years working with the alternative funding institutions leads him to conclude that the alternatives, by and large, fund social change.

The alternatives' primary activities are to raise money in annual campaigns and to give away most of it the same year. They raise money from individual donors (from middle class donors as well as wealthy ones), bequests, church members, employee payroll deductions at the workplace, United Ways, private foundations and corporations. Many of the alternatives have endowments, but these have been vigorously sought by the alternatives themselves rather than benignly bestowed by rich benefactors, and they are usually small.

"Alternative funds," which raise money from employees at the workplace, are the most numerous group of alternatives. There are 87 funds which primarily solicit workplace contributions: 44 social action funds, 20 environmental federations and 23 Black United Funds. However, every type of alternative (except the religious funders) has one or more funds also soliciting some workplace funds, increasing the total of alternatives utilizing employee contributions to around 100. They all originated because of grave dissatisfaction with United Ways' allocations.

The 73 Women's Funds are second most numerous, followed by the 32 Native American Foundations/Funds, 17 lesbian/gay/bisexual/transsexual foundations, the17 alternative community foundations, 13 religious funders, six Hispanic funds and three Asian Pacific community funds.

In calculating the total grants and distributions of the alternative funding institutions that granted or distributed $106 million for progressive social change circa 1998, the author collected data from the Women's Funding Network, the National Black United Fund, Native Americans in Philanthropy, the Funding Exchange, The Working Group on Lesbian and Gay Issues, Interfaith Funders, several individual researchers and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). The NCRP's data on workplace alternative funds was collected from a survey of nearly 100 individual funds engaged in raising payroll deduction contributions for progressive social change.

The $106 million granted and allocated for social change by the alternatives and religious funders 1997/1998 (see Table 1) is substantial money indeed. Consider that, as indicated previously, the National Network of Grantmakers reported $336 million granted for progressive social change in 1997. Of this total, private and community foundations gave 79%,(142) or approximately $265 million. Thus, the alternatives' and religious funders' $106 million equals 40% of what all private and community foundations, including both mainline liberal foundations and progressive foundations, gave for social action.

This percentage is striking, especially when compared to the 1990 data developed by Jenkins and Halcli in their study of foundation funding of progressive social movements. According to their study, private and community foundations gave $68 million or 71% of the total of $88 million for social movements, while the alternative funding institutions and religious funders gave $20 million or 29%.(143) While this may be comparing apples and oranges, nevertheless, it seems that the alternative funding institutions and religious funders became more significant within overall philanthropy in funding social movements/social change from 1990 to 1997/1998 .

The fact that alternative funding institutions are now, maybe more than ever, significant funders of progressive social change has major significance for the alternative grant-making movement in the U.S. -- because its participants have traditionally considered themselves as poor relatives of the big private foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, etc.) and the fast growing traditional community foundation movement (typified by the Cleveland Foundation, New York Community Trust and California Community Foundation). Now, the alternatives can take pride, not only in their social change mission, the disenfranchised character of their grantees and members, and in their iconoclastic natures, but also in their significant combined funding record. The alternatives -- at long last -- must be considered a serious source of money for social change in this country.

  3.  How the Alternative Funding Institutions Differ from Mainline Philanthropy

As Table 1 indicates, there are 10 different types of alternative funders which comprise the alternatives to mainline foundations regarding support of progressive social change. Three of the fund types are generally called "alternative funds," as in alternatives to United Ways, which primarily raise contributions in the workplace: social action funds, environmental federations and Black United Funds. Six of the types are "identity based": women's funds, Black United Funds, Native American foundations/funds, Hispanic funds, Asian Pacific American funds and LGBT funds (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transsexual). The alternative community foundations (the Funding Exchange foundations and Tides Foundation) and religious funders round out the 10 types of alternatives.

The identify of these alternative funders is no surprise. Anyone reasonably familiar with the world of philanthropy has known of their existence. The Foundation News and Commentary, The Chronicle of Philanthropy and other philanthropic media have (ir)regularly reported on them. But prior to this report, no one and no media looked at them all together to assess how they compare to mainline foundations.

Why should they be considered as a group distinct from mainline foundations? Every type of alternative except the religious funders originated because of grave dissatisfaction with how mainline foundations were conducting their grant-making or how United Ways were making allocations -- hence, the identification of them as "alternatives." Instead of being top-down models of philanthropy, such as the mainline foundations and United Ways, they are basically ground-up models, which both expect and permit more of grassroots participation. Most of the alternative foundations and alternative funds are local or state-based, while the religious funders are generally national in scope. They are fundamentally community-based, though often the "communities" are comprised of similar individuals or like-minded causes, rather than geographically bound. The alternatives target their grants narrowly to benefit their special "communities" (i.e., women, racial/ethnic groups, gays and lesbians), or in the case of the alternative community foundations and the religious funders, to support community-based-organizations. The alternative funds soliciting at the workplace distribute their collections to their member organizations. (While some mainline foundations target their grants narrowly as just noted, they are few in number relative to the entire foundation universe.) Most of the alternatives are organized as public charities, rather than as private foundations. (Among the 50,200 grant-making foundations tracked by The Foundation Center, the reverse is true, as private foundations far outnumber the 664 community foundations organized as public charities under IRS laws and regulations.)

Should the religious funders be included in this group at all? All religious funders are not. Only included are the Interfaith Funders organization and its 12 members, such as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, the Jewish Fund for Justice, the Presbyterian Church USA (One Great Hour of Sharing Fund) and the Global Ministries of the Methodist Church. They are dedicated to fund low income community organizing and low income community-based-organizations. Moreover, they also self identify with most of the alternatives, often by participating together in conferences, training and planning sessions.

This section will discuss the alternative funding institutions in the chronological order of their appearance on the scene: new religious funders, Black United Funds, social action funds, Women's Funds, alternative community foundations, Native American grantmakers, Tides Foundation/Tides Center, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transsexual foundations, environmental federations, Hispanic funds and Asian Pacific American funds. Refer back to Table 1, the far right column, for the years the alternatives were first established. The funding institutions' origins, critical data and attitudes will be reported.

  4.  The Religious Funders

Using data from Independent Sector, Alan Rabinowitz estimated that religious institutions gave $50 million for progressive social change in 1986.(144) Updating this estimate, based on the 64% increase in giving for religion generally from 1986 to 1998,(145) could mean that $82 million might have been granted for social change in 1998.

Religious funders are a major part of the alternatives that fund social change. Those who targeted their grants on low income community organizing and low income community-based organizations awarded $26.3 million in 1998, thereby providing almost one-third of all religion's total contributions to social change. The Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, created in 1959, provides $10 million of the total and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), established in 1970, provides $14 million.

Interfaith Funders (IF) is a grant-making consortium of 12 faith-based funders - including CCHD and the Veatch Program -- which banded together in 1998 to raise more money for faith-based community organizing. According to IF's draft 1999 annual report, "The ethos of faith-based community organizing asserts that democracy demands civic participation and action on decisions that affect people's lives...[and provides the] people most affected by social and economic problems with the means to identify, analyze and resolve issues." (146) CCHD and the Veatch Program incorporate this ethos into their individual institutional grant-making as well as in their cooperative IF grant-making. Raising money from the consortium members and from Ford and Surdna Foundations, Interfaith Funders made nearly $1 million in grants during 1998 and 1999. In addition to the IF members listed previously, other members are Claretian Social Development Fund, Domestic Hunger Program of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Dominican Sisters of Springfield, Marianist Sharing Fund, Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi and Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia.

  5.  Black United Funds

Back in the 1960s, Walter Bremond worked with Cummins Engine Company to develop philanthropic institutions that would be controlled by African Americans. The race riot in Los Angeles opened up the possibility of creating the Brotherhood Crusade there in 1969, as the first Black United Fund (BUF) to seek employee charitable contributions at the workplace for African American programs and organizations. The intent was to become an alternative to United Way, which was seen as unresponsive to African American interests, especially about staffing and allocations affecting African Americans.

At this time, United Ways across America were the premier organizations in workplace fund raising, having competition from other charities only in the Federal government's annual charity drive, the Combined Federal Campaign. United Ways were the sole organizations doing workplace fund raising in 99% of American corporations and government offices. More importantly, Bill Aramony was about to take over leadership of United Way of America and elevate United Ways' visibility in the national picture to that of a monolithic giant.

The existence of the Brotherhood Crusade/BUF led to creation of the National Black United Fund (NBUF), the infrastructure organization that has helped create and develop additional BUFs ever since. Under Walter Bremond's leadership, the BUF movement began. One of NBUF's first national actions was to file a lawsuit challenging United Ways' dominance of the Combined Federal Campaign. The lawsuit was eventually successful in 1980, but not until after Congressional and Federal government action had already opened the doors of the CFC to groups like the NBUF. Bremond, unfortunately, died an untimely death in 1982.

Black United Funds (BUFs) were the first of the identity-based funds. Women's funds, Native American foundations, Hispanic funds, Asian Pacific funds and lesbian/gay funds all followed afterwards. BUFs were also the first of the alternative funds seeking workplace donations.

There are 23 BUFs now, all local or state based, except for the National BUF and National Black United Federation of Charities. Unlike the other workplace funds, BUFs are organized more like grant-making foundations than as federations of member charities, and their normal mode of operation is to make grants to diverse African American charities. Though to participate in the Combined Federal Campaign and other public workplace campaigns, they have associate member arrangements which allow them to solicit as federations.

BUFs raised more than $5.5 million locally in 1998 (granting about 50% to grantees) and $2 million nationally(147) (distributing about 90% to member organizations and grantees). Thus, total revenues are $7.5 million, with $4.6 estimated as distributions. Local BUFs distribute less of their revenues than do other workplace alternative funds, because they spend substantial amounts directly on programs, like low income housing development.

  6.  Social Action Funds

The next type of Alternative Fund established was the Social Action Fund. Two were established in Philadelphia and Madison, WI, in the early 1970s, following the lead of the Los Angeles BUF. These funds organized because they believed that neither local foundations nor United Ways provided any money to anti-Vietnam war groups or advocacy organizations working for poor people, racial/ethnic minorities and women. While these two funds did not give rise to the next phase of the Alternative Funds movement -- organizing of new Social Action Funds -- nevertheless, they have survived to this day, albeit under different names and organizational forms (Bread and Roses Community Fund in Philadelphia and Community Shares of Wisconsin).

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) organized in 1976 to succeed the Donee Group. The NCRP, under the executive direction of the author, soon commenced a major campaign to open up workplace fund raising to nonprofit organizations advocating for poor people, women, racial/ethnic minorities, consumers and the environment. This became known as the Alternative Funds movement. With NCRP providing key on-site assistance, a second wave of Social Action Funds began organizing in 1978 in St. Paul, MN and elsewhere to do workplace fund raising, following the lead of Women's Way in Philadelphia (see later section) and the Black United Funds.

NCRP's first national conference on workplace fund raising was held in Dallas, TX, in 1979 with NBUF and 49 other organizations co-sponsoring. The conference was held in a very modest hotel three blocks from the luxury hotel hosting United Way of America's annual national conference. Major national publicity -- favorable to Alternative Funds -- resulted from this conference. Later in 1979, the first Congressional Hearings on the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) were held to challenge United Ways' dominance. The CFC was the world's largest workplace fund raising campaign, raising money from employees through payroll deductions. The hearings were organized by Rep. Pat Schroeder, NCRP and NBUF. Rep. Schroeder's subcommittee issued a report favorable to expanding the CFC to include nontraditional and advocacy charities, as NCRP and NBUF had sought. Following substantial lobbying by NCRP and its local charity contacts, President Jimmy Carter's Administration issued new regulations in 1980 to open up the CFC to nontraditional and advocacy charities. Over the next several years, these regulations became models for state and local government employee charity campaigns nationwide, as well as for some corporate campaigns.

Following this substantial victory in the CFC, NCRP held its first Washington, DC national conference on workplace fund raising in 1981. The 180 participants came, at their own expense, from all over the USA, from local and national organizations, working in every kind of charitable and public interest organization imaginable. NCRP became the primary infrastructure organization to help create and develop the broad Alternative Funds movement that would erode United Ways' near monopoly of workplace fund raising during the next 20 years.

Meanwhile, after President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he proposed and Congress enacted budgets which contained almost no monies for expansion of federal government spending, except for the military. This affected nonprofit organizations throughout the 1980s, causing them to expand their search for non-governmental revenues. Local and national organizations alike looked for new sources of revenue. While much was raised through direct mail, major donor solicitation, and foundation and corporate fund raising, the expansion of workplace fund raising was also a goal for many.

During his tenure, 1981-89, Reagan also proposed two Executive Orders to eliminate the new CFC regulations that allowed advocacy charities to receive Federal employee contributions. Through a combination of lawsuits, tenacious lobbying of Congress and aggressive media work, NCRP and hundreds of other national and local advocacy nonprofit groups forced Reagan to withdraw the Executive Orders. But one lawsuit reached the Supreme Court and was decided unfavorably for advocacy groups. Astute lobbying of Congress, in effect, overturned this decision. Legislation to guarantee advocacy groups' participation in the CFC was then proposed by NCRP and a coalition including national environmental organizations. After again much lobbying, Congress approved it overwhelmingly in 1987.(148) In 2000, the CFC raised $224 million from 1.5 million employee donors; over 41,000 nonprofits receive these contributions.(149)

As the key infrastructure organization behind the Alternative Funds movement, NCRP held seventeen annual national conferences, 1979-1995, to provide training and technical assistance to Alternative Funds involved with workplace fund raising. The conferences complemented NCRP's year-round on-site field work in helping organize and develop Alternative Funds during the same period, and continuing until this day.(150) Steve Paprocki, founding director of the very successful St. Paul, MN Cooperating Fund Drive, the Social Action Fund that was the prototype for the Social Action Fund movement, became the NCRP Field Director in 1985. He was succeeded by Kevin Ronnie in 1990, who left Milwaukee's A CHOICE, another successful Social Action Fund, to join NCRP. Paprocki and Ronnie focused on creating and sustaining new Alternative Funds. Under their guidance, the number of Social Action Funds grew to 44 by 1997.

Seed money from foundations played an important role in helping many Social Action Funds get started. The seed money enabled them to hire a half-time or full-time organizer/director and to pay basic expenses, such as rent, telephone and copying. This lone staff person had responsibilities to recruit additional member organizations; establish the bases for the members to work together; develop publicity for the new fund; seek access to run fund raising campaigns in government, nonprofit, university, hospital and business workplaces; and plan and implement the campaigns to solicit employees to make payroll deduction contributions to the fund and its members.

In 1997, the 44 Social Action Funds (SAFs) raised $7.1 million total by workplace fund raising.(151) However, SAFs also raised other revenues from corporations, foundations and individuals, estimated by the author at $1.8 million, making total SAF revenues $8.9 million. Thus, an average SAF raised $202,000 in total annual revenues. About 25% of the total SAF revenues are for fund raising and administration ($2.2 million), with about 75% distributed to SAF member organizations ($6.7 million).(152)

The Cooperating Fund Drive in St. Paul, MN, organized in the late 1970s, was the inspiration for the organization and development of the rest of the social action funds. CFD, since renamed Community Solutions Fund, raised $1.2 million total revenues in 1999, $865,000 in workplace donations. Other leading social action funds (and their workplace donations in 1999) are Colorado Community Shares ($830,000), which, among social action funds, has the top number of member organizations (89), Greater Cleveland Community Shares ($750,000), Community Shares of Wisconsin ($600,000), A CHOICE (Milwaukee, $540,000) and Community Shares (Knoxville, TN, $300,000). There are from 15-89 members per social action federation. Over 1000 charities are federation members. They include 9 to 5 Working Women Education Fund, ACLU of Michigan, Rethinking Schools, Idaho Conservation League, Peace Action of Michigan, Coalition of Homelessness & Housing in Ohio and Welfare Warriors.

Most of the money from workplace fund raising (70%) came from government employees (federal, state and local) in 1996. Other sources of workplace fund raising revenues were employees in business, colleges, universities and nonprofit organizations and employee/donors giving specifically to Social Action Fund members through United Way donor choice programs.(153) Most Social Action Funds succeeded, first, in gaining access to government employee charity campaigns (federal, state and local government); second, nonprofit organizations, colleges and universities; finally, corporate employee charity campaigns. Social Action Funds have had difficulty in gaining access to corporate charity campaigns. Corporations which already have United Way campaigns either do not want to be bothered or they believe the Social Action Fund member agencies are too "radical" for their taste. Newer corporations with little or no long-term commitment to United Ways have been more willing to grant access to the SAFs.

The 1841 United Ways around the country continue to play the dominant role in workplace fund raising, raising around $2 billion annually from this source, plus raising another $1.4 billion from corporate matching grants and, increasingly, from major individual donors, in their 1999-2000 campaign. However, when United Ways compete head-to-head for employee contributions with Social Action Funds and other Alternative Funds (Environmental Federations -- see below, Combined Health Appeals, United Arts Funds, America's Charities, Black United Funds), they generally receive less than half the contributions if the campaigns are run fairly, giving Alternative Funds the same visibility that United Ways receive.

In 1988, the National Alliance for Choice in Giving (NACG) was established by Alternative Funds to provide additional technical assistance for fund development. NCRP would continue to be the primary infrastructure organization to assist creation and development of new Alternative Funds. But NACG eventually, in the mid-1990s, took over primary provision of technical assistance to existing, older funds. NACG today has 55 member funds/federations in 35 states representing over 1500 individual nonprofit organizations ( These 55 members include Social Action Funds, Environmental Federations and some Women's Funds.

  7.  Women's Funds

Women's funds, after the workplace alternative funds, are the next most numerous of the alternatives. There are 93 current members of the Women's Funding Network, based in San Francisco. In 1998, over 70 funds raised $45.1 million and granted $15.9 million.(154) These numbers understate money raised and granted, however, as several women's funds did not provide data for the Networks most recent survey.

The roots of the women's fund movement go back to the 19th century and the creation of the American Association of University Women's Educational Foundation in 1888, and to creation of the Business and Professional Women's Foundation in 1956. Betty Friedan's The Feminist Mystique was published in 1963 and received extremely high visibility in the media and college campuses all over America. It provided a challenge for women to think about the barriers to their full development, and an agenda for the modern day women's movement. But the civil rights movement for African Americans in the 1960s stimulated modern day thinking, by winning the hearts and minds of many in middle class America and achieving significant legislative victories -- in voting rights and elimination of discrimination in public accommodations and employment. The power of the civil rights movement communicated to a new generation of women that it was time to renew the women's movement started earlier in the century.

The Ms. Foundation was created in 1972, as "the first public foundation providing support to self-help projects for women and girls nationwide." This was a strong stimulus in getting women to think about what could be done to focus philanthropic attention on women and girls. In effect, the concept of a real foundation dedicated to women and girls, no matter how much money it gave out initially, ultimately stimulated the creation of additional Women's Funds nationwide. During the next few years (1972-75), the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs and the Donee Group jousted about the future directions of philanthropy, as indicated earlier. Among the several critiques of traditional philanthropy offered by members of the Donee Group, Mary Jean Tully, President of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, presented a devastating critique of how traditional philanthropy largely ignored funding for women and girls, especially for programs that advanced their rights and opportunities. When the Donee Group became the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) in 1976, Tully was one of the five original co-chairs.

Womens Way organized in Philadelphia at the same time, as the first federation of women's organizations dealing with women and girls in poverty. Since women's organizations across the country were receiving very little money from United Ways and corporations, the Womens Way's sole purpose was to organize their member organizations collectively to conduct workplace fund raising and solicit corporate grants. These employee contributions and corporate grants would be shared among the member organizations. In 1977, Womens Way ran its first fund raising event.

Heeding Mary Jean Tully's wake-up call to philanthropy, Women in Foundations/ Corporate Philanthropy (WF/CP) was established in 1977 to promote recruitment and promotion of women in philanthropy, and to encourage grant making to women and girls. The organization later became Women & Philanthropy. Since its beginnings, this organization has been at the forefront of challenging philanthropy to provide more funding for women and girls, and to support their efforts to advance their rights and opportunities. It has been successful because it has engaged many of the leading women in foundations and corporate giving programs, while developing a strong base of membership of women (and some key men) at all levels in philanthropy.

By 1980, 11 Women's Funds existed.(155) During the early 1980s, Womens Way stimulated the establishment of three more federations of women's organizations in Seattle, New York City and Washington, DC. But during the same period, the examples of the Ms. Foundation and Astraea National Lesbian Action Foundation (1977) prompted the creation of 18 more women's foundations.(156) According to Rutgers University Professor Eleanor Brilliant,

The women's funding movement was created with a double heritage: On the one hand, there were funds that...emerged directly out of the broader women's movement...with a commitment to supporting...feminist purposes, such as the Ms. Foundation ...and Astraea [Foundation], a national lesbian funding organization...In addition, the organizations that developed had roots in the growing dissatisfaction expressed by women who at that time were working in existing and more mainstream philanthropic institutions...On the other hand, development of the [Women's] Funds was encouraged as part of a burgeoning Alternative Funds movement, defined that way because the funds were seen as alternatives to the United Way domination of fund-raising in the workplace and as incorporating social change goals.(157)

The first National Conference of Women's Funds was held in Washington, DC, in 1985, organized by representatives of the four women's federations, several women's foundations and the NCRP; 25 Women's Funds participated. The late Dana Alston, then director of the National Black United Fund, keynoted the conference. That year, 15 of the 25 Women's Funds reported raising $4.8 million for grants, allocations, operations, and endowment.(158)

The National Network of Women's Funds was founded at this national conference. WF/CP became the fiscal agent for the National Network, which quickly became the key infrastructure organization for assisting creation and development of new Women's Funds. The National Network of Women's Funds later changed its name to the Women's Funding Network (WFN). The most basic function of the WFN has been to help create new Women's Funds and develop existing funds "that empower women and girls." Its other core values -- which are reflected in the funds it has helped develop -- are "Diversity, inclusiveness, shared leadership...and commitment to social change..." ( According to Joanne Hayes, former executive director of WF/CP, while her organization never had any specific program to assist development of Women's Funds, nevertheless, many of the organization's individual members served on organizing committees for most of the early Women's Funds and provided much encouragement and support.(159)

Six key forces combined in the 1980s to create a climate for Women's Fund organizing, observes Capek.(160) First, the effect of "Reaganomics" on local women's and girls organizations became clear: there was less government money available. Second, the professional staff of organized philanthropy was feminized. Third, younger generations of wealthy families influenced by the 1960s and 1970s started to take control of their own money. Fourth, critiques of foundation and United Way funding of women and minorities escalated. Fifth, planning for the U.N.'s Decade for Women gained momentum and visibility. And sixth, most important, the growth and increasing powerful influence of the women's movement for equal rights and opportunities set the basic context. With WFN as ubiquitous provider of organizing and technical assistance, the number of Women's Funds grew to over 70 in the 1990s, the overwhelming majority locally based. But " 1997, WFN figures indicated that as many as 30 [additional Women's] Funds known to the network had started then foundered." (161)

Most of the 93 Women's Funds currently active are organized as grant-makers in the foundation style. However, in 2003 a distinct minority of 15 were actually private foundations (initiated by one or more major donors), while 55 were public charities, 20 were funds within community foundations and three were organized as federations focused on sharing employee contributions among member organizations.(162) "...with only a few notable exceptions, the Women's Funds never fully embraced the idea of workplace fund-raising or a federated structure, although the imprint of their beliefs in diversity and empowerment of women was compelling."(163) However, according to Carol Mollner, founding executive director of the National Network of Women's Funds/WFN, "most" Women's Funds organized as public charities, along with the three federations, "do raise money in the workplace, although that isn't their primary fund raising mechanism and they aren't structured as federations....The choice of foundation [status] (or fund in community foundation) over federation didn't have to do with lack of interest in workplace fund raising;" it had to do with other factors, especially their greater "familiarity with the foundation model." (164)

In 1998, according to the WFN, the Women's Funds themselves raised $45.1 million and granted $15.9 million. These numbers understate money raised and granted, however, as several Women's Funds did not provide data for the WFN's most recent survey.(165) What do they fund? For example, the Maine Women's Fund granted $10,000 to help low-income women on welfare start and maintain savings accounts. These savings can only be used for education, purchasing a home or business development. Public and private investors match the money on a dollar-to-dollar basis. Another example is from the Global Fund for Women, which made a grant of $13,400 to help support a reconstructed health clinic that is providing counseling, health care, education and support to women and girls survivors of the war in Kosovo. The Michigan Women's Foundation has provided grant support to the Girl Scouts to promote philanthropy that encourages "girls and giving." These are but three examples of extremely diverse giving for women and girls.

Nearly 10,000 individuals donated to Women's Funds in 1998. Gifts greater than $1000 accounted for 82% of all the individuals' dollars donated, but only 8% of the individual givers themselves. Gifts of $100 or less accounted for only 4% of the total amount, but 59% of all individual donors. Of the total dollars raised in 1998, 53% was from individuals, 27% foundations, 17% corporations, 3% bequests and planned giving, and 1% other sources.(166)

Brilliant reports that "The movement is...marked by a great range in the assets of its members. At one end of the scale, the Ms. Foundation has a $20 million endowment; close behind is the Minnesota Women's Fund, which in the late 1990s reached an endowment of about half that amount; at the other end are funds with no endowments." (167) WFN projects asset goals of $250 million by 2004, and $450 million by 2008 ( According to Mollner, "Women's Funds are not about the charitable model with the wealthy giving to the poor. We emphasize more of a self-help approach with everyone giving what they can. We want people at all class levels to give what they can." (168) Scholar Mary Ellen Capek's research agrees, finding that "Virtually unanimously, Women's Funds are committed to democratizing both fund raising and decision-making about fund disbursements." According to another researcher, Kathleen Kelly, partnering with both donors and grantees is something that women's organizations have learned to do well. The Women's Funds, Capek adds, "excel (in) their outreach to different kinds of donors. Different, that is, from traditional philanthropy...Many feel the funds have done an excellent job of empowering women with more limited means as donors: 'Women's Funds have broken all the rules, aiming to treat all donors equally.'" (169)

The Women's Funding Network remains the driving force in helping create new Women's Funds and develop existing funds. The network had 93 Women's Funds as members in 2003. However, WFN also has other institutions and individuals as members, thus, describes itself as "a growing association of public and private foundations, federations, funds in community foundations, individual donors and supporting institutions" ( WFN's own budget in 2001 was nearly $2 million, funding a staff of nine women, consultants, office and travel expenses.(170)

Brilliant observes that WFN has faced real dilemmas for resource allocation between "giving priority to systematic data collection," providing the vital organizing and technical assistance to help "vulnerable" new Women's Funds or "serving as a clearinghouse [and] meeting ongoing needs of larger, more sophisticated member organizations." (171)

Capek assesses that Women's Funds have sensitized other foundations and funding sources to women's issues and questions of diversity. Women's Funds provide a training ground for grant-makers who move from Women's Funds to mainstream foundations, educating and politicizing them to a heightened awareness of gender issues. "They put issues on the map" Capek reports, " their communities, and they've helped larger foundations to think more strategically about women...Women's Funds' boards, especially, are seen as training grounds for both diversity and empowerment." (172)

With Chris Grumm as the new Executive Director, WFN is now located in San Francisco, after 15 years in St. Paul, MN.

  8.  Alternative Community Foundations:

The Funding Exchange Foundations

Also in 1972, as the Ms. Foundation was created as the first foundation committed to making all its grants for women and girls, the Vanguard Public Foundation was established in San Francisco, by 1960s-conditioned, young, inheritors of wealth, to fund grassroots organizations seeking social justice, giving impetus to the alternative community foundations movement. Says Vanguard co-founder Obie Benz:

When I was 21, graduating from college, and dedicated to social justice, I suddenly inherited money from my grandfather. My first thought was, 'This is great!' My second thought was, 'This is strange -- because now I'm morally obligated to do the right thing and I don't have a clue how to go about it.' I wanted to make the best use of the money, and the only way I could learn how was by doing it myself. What resulted was a group of six people who were willing to give time as well as money.(173)

Two years after Vanguard was established, Haymarket Peoples Fund was set up in Boston. According to George Pillsbury, heir to the Pillsbury flour fortune and co-founder of Haymarket, "In the 1970s we were very anti-money, and really didn't want anything to do with it." (174) Nevertheless, he and "six or seven other young people with inherited wealth who wanted to give money for social change" created Haymarket Peoples Fund. "By the end of the first year, 15 people had given a total of nearly $60,000, and over $40,000 was made in grants to 39 organizations." (175)

In 1977, Robin Hood Was Right was written and published by the Vanguard Public Foundation.(176) It was "a collection of anonymous anecdotes documenting the alienation that resulted when a childhood of wealth collided with the idealistic, egalitarian world view of 1970s activism....[But] without available progressive philanthropic institutions, their philanthropy was often isolated and impulsive." (177) Robin Hood Was Right became a manifesto for rich young kids to use their wealth for social justice rather than for luxurious living. These young activists-would-be-donors "realized that the available models of philanthropy reinforced existing power dynamics. Private foundations kept control of the money squarely in the hands of the wealthy endowers, and community foundation boards were hardly represented of [the] counterculture constituencies" from whence the activists came. "These [young] activists of wealth strove to create a new model of philanthropy, one that would take the power, as well as the money, out of donors' hands and put it into the pockets of activist organizations." (178) This is exactly what Vanguard Foundation and Haymarket Peoples Fund sought to do, as well as the four additional alternative community foundations that were created in their wake during the 1970s.

In 1979, the six foundations created the Funding Exchange (FEX), which would become the infrastructure organization to promote the concept, help organize another nine similar foundations, and help continue the development of all 15 foundations. June Makela, the FEX's Executive Director from 1980-91, believed "the Funding Exchange's role was to 'organize' progressive philanthropy -- to connect wealthy individuals with progressive values to the important, but often invisible, work going on in their own communities and around the country." (179) Another FEX staff person said, "This [funding] movement is about organizing people to fund the [progressive political] movement. If donors are not included, they may not remain part of the movement." (180) The FEX network today is based on a trenchant statement about the condition of America: "Of all the causes of social problems in the USA, from environmental damage to hate crimes, the most fundamental is the increasing disparity of wealth and power. A history of exploiting human and natural resources, along with undue influence of wealth on our political system, perpetuates and strengthens a destructive dynamic within our country, and between the USA and the rest of the world. We believe these conditions must be fundamentally changed..." ( Recently, Makela writes, "As the [progressive] movement struggles to rebuild after so many right-wing assaults, small grants to support creative new organizing strategies, meetings and marches will be as important as ever." (181)

Typical of the grassroots grants made by FEX foundations are those to Workers Awaaz, a New York City group that organizes South Asian domestic workers, and to Southerners on New Ground (SONG), a Kentucky group that develops models for organizing people across lines of sex, race, class and sexual orientation. FEX Executive Director Ellen Gurzinsky writes that the FEX alternative community foundations "are at the forefront of virtually every contemporary movement for social change. They provide essential resources for both urban and rural organizing. They fund the arts and culture as organizing tools. They directly support efforts to stave off the erosion of hard-won gains in affirmative action [for minorities] and immigration policies. And they respond to emergency issues as well as contribute to the long-term infrastructure needs of their grassroots grantees." (182)

The FEX national office has established special funds to solicit for and grant money to "organizations often considered too controversial, too political, or too experimental" for mainstream philanthropy.(183) One fund is the OUT Fund for Lesbian and Gay Liberation, another fund supports organizing of communities of color, a third fund supports overseas communities healing the wounds of repression and violence, and a fourth is the Paul Robeson Fund for Independent Media. As Gail Silva, Director, Film Arts Foundation in San Francisco, writes, "Progressive communities must have strong, activist media to combat the well-funded conservative blitz of mailings, television and broadcasts." (184)

In 1999, the 15 Funding Exchange foundations made grants totaling $9.5 million, and the FEX national office granted another $3 million. Vanguard Public Foundation made the largest amount of grant money available ($2.9 million), followed by North Star Fund in New York City ($2.0 million), Liberty Hill Foundation in Los Angeles ($1.5 million) and Haymarket Peoples Fund ($1.2 million). The other 11 alternative community foundations averaged $178,000 in 1999 grants. (185) In 2000, the FEX local foundations and national office increased their total grants by $2.5 million, making over $15 million available to grantees.(186) Most revenues received are from individual donors, either as checks or gifts of securities. Some revenues are provided through corporate employee matching gift programs (such as through GTE, Microsoft, Aetna); also, some by bequests, gifts of real estate or other real property and life insurance policies. Donor advised funds play a big part in revenue raising for many FEX foundations and the national office.

"At the heart of the FEX model is the community funding board, which is a grants allocation committee comprised largely or totally of community activists that represent the diversity of its community." The donors realize that community activists have closer relationships with grassroots constituencies, and that this enables them to make grants to community organizations often ignored by traditional philanthropy. Also, "relinquishing power and money to community activists" is seen as "liberating for the funding donors..." (187) However, "All of the funds in the FEX network offer ways for donors to be involved, and some allow donors to be involved in the decision making." (188) For example, donors may help with fund raising and organizing conferences aimed at recruiting new donors. "A new donor survey [in 1999] reveals that the guiding vision of sharing financial resources and decision-making power continues to motivate our supporters as strongly now as it did back in 1979...But to expand -- more donors are needed. So a new version of Robin Hood Was Right was produced in 2000,(189) with "a conscious effort to broaden the book's audience to include persons with varying levels of political sophistication and those who may be new to the issue of social change..." (190) The essence of FEX foundations has been stated succinctly by scholar Susan Ostrander in her case study of the Haymarket Peoples Fund: " away money for social change requires doing philanthropy so that it is itself part of that change. This requires altering the typical social relations of power in philanthropy itself -- relations between donors, grantmakers, grantees and staff." (191)

Just as with Women's Funds, the Funding Exchange network has also had an impact on traditional philanthropy. According to Andy Robinson, author of Grassroots Grants: An Activist's Guide to Proposal Writing, "What seemed at the time a radical idea -- activists giving out grants -- has since become almost commonplace as more and more mainstream foundations hire organizers and hell-raisers as program officers. The face of philanthropy is changing -- slowly, but irrevocably..." (192)

Tides Foundation/Tides Center and Others

Another alternative community foundation is the Tides Foundation in San Francisco. In 1998, Tides Foundation granted $20 million for social change ( But grants increased dramatically in just two years. Drummond Pike, long-time director of Tides Foundation, reports that the Foundation made $50 million in grants 2000, more than three times the amount of the whole FEX network. Tides Foundation operates much like traditional community foundation, but it can be classified an alternative because it too grew out of frustration with established philanthropy's overwhelming neglect of progressive issues. Moreover, it was conceived as a nationally-oriented community foundation in 1976, organized to be a "community of progressive values," when all other community foundations defined their communities as localities.

The Tides Foundation set itself up to be a service to progressive donors and has certainly succeeded. The grant money of the Foundation comes from 300-400 donor advised funds, donor collaboratives, regranting programs and some small private foundations. Most of its $50 million in annual grants are from pass-through money, but the Foundation holds $140 million in assets. However, only $1 million of these assets can be used to make grants to whoever the Foundation staff want. Routinely, the Foundation either grants the money to the grantees identified by the donors, or the staff advises the donors about what grantees would be appropriate choices, given the donors' interests. The Tides Foundation provides administrative and financial management services for its donors.

The other aspect of the Tides Foundation that classifies it as an alternative community foundation is its tremendous commitment to be an incubator for new and/or small progressive nonprofit organizations. To accomplish this, the Foundation set up the Tides Center. The Center incubates new and/or small organizations -- many without their IRS 501c3 tax exempt status, therefore ineligible for tax deductible contributions-- by providing seed money, top flight administrative and financial management systems, including payroll and payroll tax systems, employee benefit packages and credit cards. Equally important, the Tides Center is the critical 501c3 agent that can legally receive and pass through to its clientele nonprofit organizations both tax deductible contributions from individuals and grants from tax favored foundations. Tides Center has to accept expenditure responsibility for these pass-through monies, but that is easily accomplished through the administrative and financial management systems that it has in place. Pike reports that Tides Center spawned over 100 independent nonprofit organizations during the 1990s. The Center eventually became a separate, independent entity from the Tides Foundation and made $50 million in grants available for its clientele of 375 independent nonprofits in the year 2000. This $50 million is in addition to the $50 million in grants made available by the Tides Foundation.(193)

Other alternative community foundations also exist in the USA outside the FEX network. Pablo Eisenberg, former executive director of the Center for Community Change, identifies the Appalachian Community Foundation, New Mexico Community Foundation and the East Ohio Community Foundations as three grantmakers that may be organized in the same way as traditional community foundations, but have a focus on issues of poverty, race and ethnicity which distinguish them from the pack.

  9.  Native American Grant-makers

Native American grant-makers, that is, those with American Indians as half or more of the board, grew from three in 1973 to 32 in 1994. They are greater in number than any other racial/ethnic identity-based alternative. The grant-makers include 22 Native foundations and 10 funds in non-foundation organizations. They granted $3.5 million in 1994 for Native causes and scholarships. The American Indian College Fund also gave $5 million to the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (which is strictly for scholarships, thus, is not included in Table 1).(194)

The growth in Native grant-makers has occurred because Native leaders see an interrelationship between the loss of Native culture and the great poverty among Indian people, and they "believe that the solutions are to be found in Native traditions, though often in combination with Western tools and concepts. For these grant-makers, Native people themselves must become involved in implementing the solutions needed to create lasting, functioning societies." (195)

Most Native foundations and funds "do not have endowments and every year must raise the money" for their grants. However, "much of the funds used by these foundations and (funds) come from other foundations and many Native organizations serve mainly as conduits for foundation funds." (196)

  10.  The Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transsexual Foundations

In 1998, the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transsexual (LGBT) foundations awarded $1.6 million in grants.(197) They number 16; fourteen are local or state based, two are national. Three years later, in 2001, they raised $9.8 million and distributed $5.0 million, a threefold increase, "to organizations and programs that have the least access to philanthropic support." The 16 foundations have generated endowments totaling $8.3 million (

LGBT community foundations provide resources to populations historically ignored or underserved by traditional philanthropy and utilize philanthropy as a tool for social activism and social change. They are critical participants in the national lesbian and gay philanthropic movement. The oldest foundation is Horizons, founded in 1979 in San Francisco; the newest is Phoenix Equality Foundation in Peoria, IL.

These institutions support new and emerging groups, build capacity of existing LGBT organizations both through direct grants and technical assistance, and encourage, promote and educate LGBT people on how to become responsible and effective philanthropists. Grants support a range of programs on civil rights, advocacy, health, education, HIV/AIDS, human services, recreation, arts and culture and capacity building for grassroots, people of color and youth organizations.

  11.  Environmental Federations

In 1962, Rachael Carson's Silent Spring was published, and it became the clarion call for the modern-day environmental movement. It examined "the way dangerous chemicals [had] been used without sufficient research or regard for their potential to harm wildlife, water, soil, and humans, creating a sinister chain of poisoning and death." (198) It offered "the first shattering look at widespread ecological degradation and touched off an environmental awareness that still exists" ( and has continued to grow. Great successes in legislation and public consciousness were achieved by the environmental movement during the next 20 years.

But after President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, his Administration did much to roll back the environmental, occupational safety and health protection legislation and regulations passed in those two decades. Thus, environmental organizations had to greatly expand their overall fund raising and operations to counter these regressive Federal government policies. Mainly they did this through direct mail, major donor solicitation and foundation fund raising. But key environmental groups also wanted a piece of the workplace fund raising pie.

Returning to the 1981 national conference organized by NCRP in Washington, DC, one of the participants was Earl Blauner, from the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, based in San Francisco. Blauner returned to California and, in 1982, with colleagues from other environmental groups, established the first Environmental Federation (the Environmental Federation of California -- EFC). At first EFC sought to establish a productive working relationship with the San Francisco United Way. It lasted a year. Once the EFC showed it could draw substantial charitable contributions, the United Way unilaterally changed the rules by which EFC could solicit and receive payroll deduction contributions. EFC struck out on its own, and independently became a success. EFC later became Earth Share of California, which raised $2.1 million in employee contributions in 1999, leading all state and regional environmental federations. After EFC, three additional state Environmental Federations (EFs) organized and began soliciting workplace contributions in Oregon, Washington state and Minnesota. NCRP helped to give birth to these new EFs, as it did with the EFC.

In 1988, the next year after the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) legislation passed, the Environmental Federation of America (EFA), a national environmental federation, was organized to take advantage of it. Blauner, along with Sharon Benjamin of Friends of the Earth, Melissa Hippler of National Audubon Society and Hilary Dick of National Parks and Conservation Association, developed the successful plan to organize EFA and certify it for participation in the 1989 CFC campaign. EFA later became Earth Share, under Kal Stein's direction.

In 1990, a new infrastructure organization was created which would greatly expand the Environmental Federation movement. The Environmental Support Center (ESC) was established to strengthen state and local grassroots environmental organizations, and a primary program was to organize and sustain additional Environmental Federations that would participate in workplace fund raising. ESC connected with existing state environmental councils (coalitions of local and state-based environmental advocacy organizations that focus on state policy) to carry out this program. ESC gained easy access to the state environmental councils because its founder, Jim Abernathy, was an enviro himself. But over time, ESC's other primary programs increased ESC's credibility in the grassroots environmental movement, thus making easier ESC's task of helping organize and sustain new Environmental Federations. These other programs aided grassroots environmental organizations in a number of ways: support for the national network of 50-60 state environmental councils, provision of subsidies for training and organizational assistance of the grassroots groups, a loan fund to help increase their funding base, computer network training and donations of computer equipment, software and faxes (

Because of ESC's direct technical assistance to environmental groups who wanted to organize new Environmental Federations, the number of state and regional EFs involved in workplace fund raising grew from 4 to 19 during the next several years. The number of member groups in each Environmental Federation ranges from 15-45, with 24 being the average number of member groups in the state and regional federations, and 45 being the number of Earth Share members. In 1997, the Environmental Federations raised $14 million total by workplace fund raising. The 19 state and regional federations raised $5.6 million of this amount. Earth Share raised $8.4 million.(199) Of Earth Share's $8.4 million, around 80% was distributed to its member organizations ($6.7 million).(200)

However, state and regional Environmental Federations also raised other revenues from corporations, foundations and individuals, estimated by the author at $1.4 million, making total state and regional federation revenues of $7.0 million. Thus, these federations averaged $368,000 in total annual revenues. Like Social Action Funds, about 25% of the state environmental federations' revenues are for fund raising and administration ($1.8 million), with about 75% distributed to their member organizations ($5.2 million).(201) According to the ESC, the 19 state and regional federations "raised over $44 million in new dollars on behalf of more than 450 state and local environmental groups from 1991 to 1999" ( This translates into an average of nearly $100,000 per individual EF member group.

Most of the money from workplace fund raising (around 68%) came from government employees (federal, state and local) in 1996, nearly the same as for Social Action Funds. Other sources of workplace fund raising revenues were employees in business (26% -- much higher than for Social Action Funds), colleges, universities, nonprofit organizations and employee/donors giving specifically to Social Action Fund members through United Way donor choice programs.(202)

As with Social Action Funds, Environmental Federations succeeded, first, in gaining access to government employee charity campaigns (federal, state and local government); second, nonprofit organizations, colleges and universities; finally, corporate employee charity campaigns. Environmental federations now run campaigns in most state governments, hundreds of local governments and major corporations such as the following:

Adobe Systems
American Airlines
Kaiser Permanente
Mattel Toys
Mazda Motors of America
Netscape Communications
New York Times Co.
Pitney Bowes
Rand Corporation
Samsung Austin Semiconductor
Starbucks Coffee Co.
Tandem Computer

USA Today (Earth Share website) Environmental Federations have had much more success in getting into corporate charity drives than Social Action Funds have. This has been the case because of three factors. First, Earth Share as a national organization has led the way in opening up access for Environmental Federations, whereas there is no comparable national Social Action Fund. Second, middle class America has embraced the environmental movement to a much larger degree than it has supported the progressive social action movement. Third, the Environmental Federations have a more clearly defined image concerning what they are about than do the Social Action Funds, which embrace very diverse causes from day care and women's rights to immigrants' rights and community development.

Recently, Earth Share and the state and regional Environmental Federations combined forces in seeking access to new workplaces and jointly campaigning for contributions. This has been done in order to develop a much stronger "brand name" to elicit greater contributions for environmental organizations (the way fusion of diverse federated groups under the United Way label had done so in the early 1970s), also to eliminate costly competition among national and state Environmental Federations and the confusion this caused in the workplace charity campaigns in which they participated.

  12.  Hispanic Funds and Asian Pacific American Funds

Hispanic funds and Asian Pacific American funds are the newest identity-based alternatives. There are six Hispanic funds and three Asian Pacific American funds. They granted $0.9 million and $285,000, respectively, in 1997.(203)

Three of the Hispanic funds primarily operate within the workplace fund raising arena (two - in San Francisco and New York City -- tied to United Ways, and one - in Los Angeles - independent). The other three -- in Kansas City, St. Paul and Lorain, OH -- are field of interest funds located within community foundations. They were all created because it was felt that traditional "philanthropy has largely ignored Latinos" and, as Henry Ramos and Gabriel Kasper explain, there was "a relative dearth of institutional vehicles through which to capture and leverage available community giving resources in ways that are culturally acceptable." (204) The late William A. Diaz, former Ford Foundation executive, subsequently University of Minnesota scholar, said, "The development of the Latino community funds may be the culmination of all the efforts to involve Latinos in philanthropy...[They] appear to be attracting new contributors and money to the field. [Moreover,] The support provided by these funds tends to be delivered with greater flexibility and responsiveness to grassroots community groups than traditional funders are able to provide...Equally important, the Latino community funds have evolved to support the needs of the Latino community which studies have shown are not being met by mainstream philanthropic institutions." (205)

The three Asian Pacific American funds are quite similar to the three Hispanic funds connected to workplace fund raising, in that two - in San Francisco and New York City -- are closely tied with United Ways, and the third - in Los Angeles -- is independently active in raising workplace donations. They too were created with thoughts similar to those of the founders of the Hispanic funds. The Asian Pacific funds' agendas include hoping "to foster relationships with wealthy Asian donors (and)... to alert mainstream foundations to the needs of the Asian community." (206)


137. Steven Lawrence, Robin Gluck and Dia Ganguly, Foundation Yearbook: Facts and Figures on Private and Community Foundations, New York: The Foundation Center, 2001.

138. Robert O. Bothwell, "Alternative Funding Institutions Have Become Serious Competitors with Mainline Foundations in Funding Progressive Social Change," unpublished paper, Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Jan. 25, 2001.

139. Covington, 1997, op. cit.

140. National Network of Grantmakers, op. cit., p. 1.

141. Susan A. Ostrander, E-mail to author, Jan. 5, 2001.

142. National Network of Grantmakers, op. cit.

143. Based on J. Craig Jenkins, email communication with author, 2001.

144. Rabinowitz, op. cit., p. 31.

145. Melissa S. Brown, Ed., Giving USA 2002, Indianapolis, IN: Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 2003, p. 171.

146. Interfaith Funders, 1999 Annual Report (draft) , New York: Interfaith Funders, 2000 forthcoming, p. 7.

147. Wendy Oldham, Program Director, National Black United Fund, Newark, NJ. Telephone conversation with author, June 19, 2000.

148. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, The Combined Federal Campaign: A Special Report, Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1988.

149. NACG/National Alliance for Choice in Giving, "Federal Giving Rises to $224 Million," Workplace Giving News, Summer, 2001.

150. Professor Eleanor Brilliant's comprehensive history of The United Way, documents the early successes of United Ways, the rise of the Alternative Funds movement, the failures of United Ways to adapt to a changing environment in the 1980s and the whole CFC battle and outcome. Published in 1992, the book ends before the huge scandal involving United Way of America president, Bill Aramony. The courts found him guilty of financial irregularities and imprisoned him, leaving the United Way network with a huge negative public relations image and at loose ends as to future directions.

151. Bothwell and Delany, op. cit.

152. Bothwell, 2001, op. cit.

153. Bothwell and Delany, op. cit.

154. Women's Funding Network, Facts about Women's Funds: 1997 Financials, 1998 Demographics, St. Paul, MN: Women's Funding Network, 1999.

155. Mary Ellen S. Capek, "Foundation Support for Women and Girls: 'Special Interest' Funding or Effective Philanthropy?" Vol. 2. In M. E. S. Capek (Ed.), Women and Philanthropy: Old Stereotypes and New Challenges (Monograph Series), San Francisco: Women's Funding Network, 1998.

156. Zak Mettger, Women's Funds, Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1986; Eleanor L. Brilliant, "Women's Gain: Fund Raising and Fund Allocation as an Evolving Social Movement Strategy," Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, Dec. 2000, pp. 554-570.

157. Brilliant, op. cit., pp.557-8. Brilliant goes on to note that early Women's Fund organizers "eschewed formal identification with the term feminist and defined themselves as part of a 'woman's' funding network. The emphasis on woman and not feminist resulted from an effort to avoid conflicts that could have ensued over the formal declaration of a feminist ideology, particularly since the emphasis was on gaining resources for women (and girls)" p.558.

158. Carol Mollner, Founding Executive Director of National Network of Women's Funds/Women's Funding Network, E-mail of June 29, 2001.

159. Joanne Hayes, former Executive Director of Women in Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy//Women & Philanthropy, E-mails of June 28 and June 30, 2001.

160. Capek, op. cit.

161. Brilliant, op. cit., p. 559.

162. Anita Lalwani, Women's Funding Network, email to author, Jan. 23, 2003.

163. Brilliant, op. cit., p. 558.

164. Mollner, op. cit.

165. Women's Funding Network, op. cit.

166. Ibid.

167. Brilliant, op. cit., p. 560.

168. Quoted in Michael May, Are We Ready? Social Change Philanthropy and the Coming $10 Trillion Transfer of Wealth, Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1999, p. 19.

169. Capek, op. cit.

170. Women's Funding Network, Ask a Woman for Directions, 2001 Annual Report, San Francisco: Women's Funding Network, 2002.

171. Brilliant, op. cit., p. 561.

172. Capek, op. cit.

173. Funding Exchange, 20th Anniversary Report, 1979-1999 (draft), New York: Funding Exchange, 2000, p. 9.

174. May, op. cit., p. 34.

175. Susan A. Ostrander, Money for change: social movement philanthropy at Haymarket People's Fund, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995, p. 9.

176. Vanguard Public Foundation, Robin Hood Was Right: A Guide for Giving Your Money for Social Change, San Francisco: Vanguard Public Foundation, 1977.

177. May, op. cit., p. 33.

178. Ibid.

179. Funding Exchange, op. cit., p. 6.

180. Ostrander, op. cit., p. 98.

181. Funding Exchange, op. cit., p. 6.

182. Ibid., p. 3.

183. Ibid., p. 22.

184. Ibid., p. 26.

185. Ron Hanft, Estimate of Grants to Groups & Issues Affecting Lesbians, Gay Men, Bi-sexual and Transgender Persons (and for all other purposes), Unpublished statistics, New York City: Funding Exchange, June 16, 2000.

186. Ron Hanft, Funding Exchange national office, E-mail of July 5, 2001.

187. May, op. cit., p. 34.

188. Ibid.

189. Chuck Collins and Pam Rogers, with Joan P. Garner, Robin Hood Was Right: A Guide to Giving Your Money for Social Change, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000.

190. Funding Exchange, op. cit., p. 11-12.

191. Ostrander, op. cit., p.168.

192. Funding Exchange, op. cit., p. 25.

193. Both Tides Foundation and Tides Center run their operations off earned income, often a percentage of the grant money they process. Pablo Eisenberg criticizes Tides for taking 10% of all the money passing through it for its operations. However, Pike argues that operating on such earned income means that neither the Foundation nor the Center have to seek grants for operations in competition with their grantees and incubating small nonprofits.

194. A. Ewen and J. Wollock, Native Americans in Philanthropy: Survey of Grant Giving by American Indian Foundations and Organizations, Lumberton, NC: Native Americans in Philanthropy, 1996.

195. Ibid., p. 3.

196. Ibid.

197. Nancy Cunningham, Exec. Director, The Working Group on Lesbian and Gay Issues, Letter to author, June 12, 2000.

198. Prudence Hockley, Review of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson. In Erica Bauermeister et al (Ed.), 500 Great Books by Women: A Reader's Guide, 1994.

199. Bothwell and Delany, op. cit.

200. Kal Stein, Executive Director of Earth Share, Washington, DC, Telephone conversation, June 26, 2000.

201. Bothwell, 2001, op. cit.

202. Bothwell and Delany, op. cit.

203. Henry A. J. Ramos and Gabriel Kasper, "Latinos and community funds: a comparative overview and assessment of Latino philanthropic self-help initiatives." In Diana Campoamor, William A. Diaz and Henry A. J. Ramos (Ed.), Nuevos Senderos: Reflections on Hispanics and Philanthropy, Houston: Arte Publico Press, University of Houston, 1999; May, op. cit.

204. Ibid., p. 167.

205. William A. Diaz, "Philanthropy and the Case of the Latino Communities in America," In Clotfelter, C. & Ehrlich, T. (ed.) Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999, p. 283, 285-7.

206. May, op. cit., p. 15.