1. No category

Strategic Philanthropy and Grantmaking for Social Change –
PANL 5304
Instructor: John Healy
Class dates:
May 25th to May 29th 2015
Learning objectives & outcomes
The use of private funds for public benefit and social change is growing in importance
internationally. This course provides insights into philanthropic theories and practices, with
an emphasis on understanding different approaches to funding social change. In particular,
it exposes philanthropic practitioners and students of social change to a range of theoretical
lenses, practical lessons and strategic tools, which provides them with a thorough grounding
in current philanthropic thinking.
By the end of the course students will have a thorough understanding of
1) The major philanthropic historical and current trends with regard to influencing
social change
2) The various strategic and evaluation tools used by foundations in social change
efforts, where and when it is appropriate to apply these tools and their potential
benefits and limitations
3) The capacity of foundations to positively and negatively influence the development
of nonprofit fields involved in seeking to bring about social change
4) The increased role which private wealth and philanthropy are playing in shaping
political, economic and social discourses and the implications of this for the evolving
relationship with the state
5) The ethical and power relationship issues, which arise between grant recipients and
donors.
1
Course overview
The course will provide a solid theoretical and practical grounding for students in
philanthropic approaches to influencing policy and wider social beliefs and practices. The
course will commence with a focus on a range of theoretical lenses that can be used to
understand philanthropic influence, ranging from public good and charitable models to
critical and realist approaches. The relevance of philanthropic education in graduate and
executive education will also be discussed and an overview of how previous students have
applied the lessons they have learned in similar courses to practice in the nonprofit sector
internationally will be outlined. This will help participants at the outset understand the
spectrum of possible different interpretations of philanthropic efforts to engage in social
change and to begin to consider the relevance of the course materials for their own careers.
The relevance of the topic to Canadian practitioners will also be discussed. The lectures will
then focus on philanthropic efforts to bring about social change and the strategic approaches
used by foundations and participants will become familiar with specific tools and strategic
approaches used by foundations in social change efforts. Some of the most significant cases
internationally of philanthropic funding influencing policy will be discussed, varying from
specific advocacy campaigns to longer-term efforts to influence the values and beliefs
underpinning political debates. The implications of these efforts for the relationship between
philanthropy and the state will be considered. Models that promote partnership between
state and philanthropic actors and more challenging advocacy models are compared and
contrasted.
The approaches to philanthropy, which call for foundations to act as more central actors in
nonprofit fields and to intervene more assertively in nonprofit organizations, are then
explored. Students will be encouraged to reflect on what is new in these trends and what the
implications are for social change efforts amongst nonprofit organizations. Community
foundations will also be discussed and the advantages and disadvantages of community
foundations funding social change efforts will be considered. Finally, the complexities of the
2
power dynamics between grantors and grantees and the cultural dynamics of working
internationally are explored.
At the conclusion of the week, students will make a short presentation in groups on the
themes analyzed during the course and a class discussion and debate will take place with a
panel of experienced philanthropic practitioners and researchers. The purpose of these
presentations and discussions is to help students consider the ways in which the lessons they
have learned can be put into practice across different contexts.
Expectations
It is essential that students have read the essential readings in advance of the week. It is also
expected that students engage in the discussions and debates amongst the class and spend
some additional time preparing the group presentations. There are also individual
assignments, which will need to be completed three weeks after the completion of the course
(see below).
Required Readings
There is no textbook for the course; all readings are available through CULearn (where
noted, some are online as well). You can access CULearn from the main Carleton University
webpage: https://carleton.ca/culearn/
Evaluation
The evaluation of the course is allocated as:
Component
% of Grade
Individual class
20 %
Due Date
participations
Group presentation
20 %
Take away assignment
60 %
June 26th
3
Deadlines: Please note that deadlines are deadlines: you are expected to meet them. A late
assignment will be deducted 5 % for each day it is late.
Class participation: The format of the course will rely heavily on various means of student
engagement (such as group discussions, role playing, and formal debates), and you will be
expected to be a thoughtful, active participant. The participation evaluation will be based on
an aggregate of your engagement, taking into account that what matters is not how much a
student says but how thoughtful and constructive it is for the class as a whole.
Group presentation: Students will be allocated to groups at the start of the week and will be
assigned a topic, which they will be required to develop a proposal on, using PowerPoint.
The groups will draw upon the materials discussed over the course of the week, to develop a
philanthropic strategy to influence social change. Students are encouraged to be creative and
to make the presentations compelling and persuasive. The topics will be provided on May
25th.
Take-away assignment: This assignment presents students with five integrative questions
that draw upon the readings, from which they must answer three. The responses should
demonstrate understanding and originality of thinking about the topics.
The assignment will be distributed on May 29th and is due June 26th. Please submit through
CULearn.
Grading Scheme
The following explanation of grades is the agreed policy of the School of Public Policy and
Administration (SPPA), based on the Carleton University system.
4
In graduate school, expectations about analytical abilities and performance are higher than in
undergraduate work, and what is an acceptable grade is also different. SPPA has expanded
upon the grading system outlined in the Graduate Calendar in order to give you a fuller
description of standards. This explanation is intended to provide clarification of the
Graduate Calendar, and in no way overrides it.
Carleton University uses a 12 point grading scale from A+ (12) to D- (1). Your overall Grade
Point Average (GPA) will be calculated on the basis of this 12 point scale and the final
evaluation you receive in courses will be submitted as letter grades corresponding to this
scale. Grades of A- or B+ should be considered as good, solid performances that hover
around the average for graduate work. In any given class, most of the grades are likely to be
A- or B+. There are usually fewer grades of A, and an A means you have done very well;
grades of A+ are quite rare (but we do give them). A grade of B- is a strong signal that things
did not go well in the course, and you were considerably below average. Normally, graduate
students do not get credit for courses with a grade less than B-. Here is how to interpret
grades in terms of our expectations of performance:
Letter
CU
Indicates
%
grade
grade
that work is:
Range
Outstanding
90-100
SPPA Explanation
points
A+
12
For written work, virtually publishable.
Demonstrates exceptional evaluative judgment,
outstanding critical thinking, and mastery of
technical as well as literary aspects of writing.
A
11
Excellent
85-89
Demonstrates superior grasp of material, very strong
critical thinking, and capacity to understand and
extend underlying patterns.
A-
10
Very Good
80-84
Demonstrates strong grasp of material, its component
parts, and capacity to analyze their relationships to
each other.
5
B+
9
Good
77-79
Demonstrates clear understanding of material and
ability to apply concepts. Written work is competent.
B
8
Satisfactory
73-76
Satisfactory, but below average. Demonstrates
comprehension of material, reasonable but not strong
analytical capacity, with limitations in the ability to
apply concepts.
B-
7
Barely
70-72
Adequate
Clearly below average. Demonstrates comprehension
and understanding, with limited capacity for
application. Communication skills problematic.
C+
6
Less Than
67-69
Adequate
Did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of
the material or the ability to apply the concepts.
Writing and/or presentations show serious problems.
C to D-
50-66
Grades in this range indicate work that is passable in
some respects but does not meet the standards of
graduate work.
F
Failure
Did not meet minimal requirements.
University Policies
Academic Integrity
Please be aware that this paper must be original to this course, and your own work.
Academic offences are serious infractions and will not be tolerated. Students should consult
Section 14 of the Faculty of Graduate Studies Calendar, General Regulations concerning
academic integrity and instructional offences.
Academic Accommodation
You may need special arrangements to meet your academic obligations during the course.
For more details on accommodation, please see the Student Guide.
6
Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
The Paul Menton Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) provides services to students
with Learning Disabilities (LD), psychiatric/mental health disabilities, Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), chronic medical
conditions, and impairments in mobility, hearing, and vision. If you have a disability
requiring academic accommodations in this course, please contact PMC at 613-520-6608 or
[email protected] for a formal evaluation.
Course Outline (Please note that essential readings are marked with an asterisk)
Day 1 – Introduction to social change philanthropy
The focus on the morning of the first day will be on introducing the topic of social change
philanthropy and providing an overview of the week ahead. The first session will outline
how philanthropic funders have historically sought to influence social change and the
various institutional logics, which have operated within philanthropy, drawing on Chapters
1 and 2 of Frumkin (2006). The relevance of philanthropic education to students and
practitioners will then be discussed. In the afternoon a theoretical model of the different
ways in which the social change efforts of foundations can be interpreted (Healy &
Donnelly-Cox (forthcoming)) will be presented. The relevance of philanthropy and social
change to nonprofit sector and public policy will then be discussed. The teams for the group
projects will then be announced and the topics circulated.
Readings
*Anheier, H. K. & Leat, D. (2006). Creative philanthropy: Toward a new philanthropy for the
twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.
Arnove, R., & Pinede, N. (2007). “Revisiting the “big three” foundations.” Critical Sociology,
33(3), 389–425.
Carnegie, A. (1889). “Wealth.” North American Review, June.
Fleishman, J. (2009). The Foundation: A great American secret; How private wealth is changing the
world. New York: Public Affairs.
7
*Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic philanthropy: The art and science of giving. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
*Healy, J. A., & Donnelly-Cox, G. (forthcoming). “The evolving state relationship:
Implications of “Big Societies” and shrinking states.” In J. Harrow, T. Jung, & S. Phillips
(Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. London: Routledge.
Day 2 – Strategic philanthropy
On the second day, the focus will be on strategic philanthropy and its application to social
change work. In the morning the first session will provide an overview of the concepts and
approaches of strategic philanthropy. Strategic philanthropy will be explored from the
perspectives of both the grantor and the grantee. The arguments advanced by proponents of
the approach such as Brest (2012) and Porter & Kramer (1999) will be compared and
contrasted with those who adopt a more skeptical approach such as Edwards (2008) and
Patrizi & Thompson (2011). The implications specifically for social change work will then be
explored drawing on (Jagpal & Lakowski, 2013). In the afternoon sessions, the focus will shift
towards the implications for practice of strategic philanthropy and the tools of planning and
evaluation. By the end of these sessions the participants will have been exposed to a range of
current and emerging approaches for planning and evaluating social change work. These
tools and their appropriate application will be illustrated using experiences from social
change efforts and relevant materials will be provided in class.
Readings
*Brest, P. (2012). “A decade of outcome-oriented philanthropy.” Stanford Social Innovation
Review, Spring, 42–47.
Edwards, M. 2008. Just Another Emperor? The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism.
Demos, USA.
Eisenberg, P. (2007). “Book review of strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy by
Peter Frumkin.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(1), 75–77.
*Jagpal, N., & Lakowski, K. (2013) Real results: Why strategic philanthropy is social justice
philanthropy. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
8
*Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999). “Philanthropy’s new agenda: creating value.” Harvard
Business Review, 77(6), 121–30.
*Patrizi, P., & Thompson, E. H. (2011). “Beyond the Veneer of Strategic Philanthropy.” The
Foundation Review, 2(3), 52–60.
Day 3 – Public policy
On the third day the focus will be on philanthropic strategies to influence public policies
internationally. Cases will be drawn from Canada, the United States, South Africa and
Ireland. The cases will illustrate examples of how philanthropy can adopt partnership
approaches and work in conjunction with government, seek to influence policy through
informing the terms of the debate (Rich, 2001 and Micklewait & Wooldridge, 2004) or
supporting assertive challenges to government policies such as public interest litigation
(Heywood, 2009). The implications of this policy work for the nature of the relationship
between philanthropy and the state will be discussed (Healy & Donnelly-Cox, forthcoming),
exploring issues such as regulation and fiscal treatment of donations (Reich, n.d.). Much of
the afternoon will be spent discussing and debating how different social change strategies
such as research, advocating and litigating can be effective in terms of influencing public
policy and whether formal strategy tools can help augment these efforts.
Readings
Atlantic Philanthropies (2008). Advocacy: Why supporting advocacy makes sense for foundations.
Available at www.atlanticphilanthropies.org
*Healy, J. A., & Donnelly-Cox, G. (forthcoming). “The evolving state relationship:
Implications of “Big Societies” and shrinking states.” In J. Harrow, T. Jung, & S. Phillips
(Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. London: Routledge.
*Heywood, M. (2009). “South Africa’s Treatment Action Campaign: Combining law and
social mobilization to realize the right to health.” Journal of Human Rights Practice, Vol. 1
March, 15-36.
Krugman, P. (2002) “For richer.” New York Times, October 20
*Micklewait, J. & Wooldridge, A. (2004). Chapter 6 “The rive droit.” In The right nation. 151171.
9
*Parker, S. (2012). Civil Partnership in Ireland: How a minority became a majority: A case study of
the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network. Center for Evaluation Innovation. Available at
http://www.glen.ie/attachments/Case_Study_-_How_a_minority.PDF
Raman, S. (2011). “Focusing on advocacy: The time is now for foundations, large and small,
to engage in public policy.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, 25–27.
Reich, R. (ND). “Towards a political theory of philanthropy.” Working paper available at
http://pacscenter.stanford.edu/sites/all/files/images/reich-toward-a-political-theory-ofphilanthropy.pdf
*Rich, Andrew. (2001) "US think tanks and the intersection of ideology, advocacy, and
influence." NIRA Review, 8.1, 54-59.
Shuman, M. (1998). “Why do progressive foundations give too little to too many?” The
Nation, 12 January 1998
Suárez, D. F. (2012). “Grant making as advocacy: The emergence of social justice
philanthropy.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(3), 259–280
Day 4 – The appropriate relationship with the grantee organizations & good grantmaking
practices in social change work
On the fourth day the focus will shift towards the role of the donor and the relationships
between nonprofit organizations and social movements. The emphasis will be on examining
how the dynamics of those relationships are managed and the different approaches to giving
which underpin these relationships. In the morning, the focus will be on exploring the
perspectives on philanthropy that accord the funder a powerful and central role. The venture
philanthropy movement will be discussed (LaFrance & Latham, 2008, Hecht, 2007 and Letts,
Ryan & Grossman, 1997) which emphasizes the need for philanthropists to bring their
business experience to “improve” the work of their grantees. The collective impact
movement is also discussed which perceives a leadership role for funders in instigating
collective action amongst organizations in fields (Kramer, 2009 and Kania & Kramer, 2011).
The values and assumptions that underpin these approaches will be discussed and the
potential, limitations and criticisms of these approaches will be analyzed. More critical
perspectives which emphasize the conservative influence which foundations can wield
10
within social movements will be discussed (Arnove, 1982). In the afternoon, the emphasis
will shift towards exploring the ethical and practical issues in managing relationships with
grantees and implementing good grant-making practices (Quinn Patton, Bare, & Bonnet,
2004). The complexity of managing relationships between international donors and domestic
nonprofit organizations will also be explored (Aksartova, 2009).
Readings
*Aksartova, S. (2009). “Promoting civil society or diffusing NGOs? U.S. Donors in the former
Soviet Union.” In D. C. Hammack & S. Heydemann (Eds.), Globalization, Philanthropy and
Civil Society: Projecting institutional Logics Abroad. 160–191. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Arnove, R. (1982). Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ditkoff, S., & Colby, S. (2009). “Galvanizing philanthropy.” Harvard Business Review,
(November).
Isaacs, S. L., & Knickman, J. R. 2005. “Field building: lessons from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation’s anthology series.” Health Affairs, 24(4): 1161–5.
*Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). “Collective impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter,
36–41.
Kramer, M. (2009). “Catalytic Philanthropy.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, 30–35.
Hecht, B. (2007). “Wholesaling social change: Philanthropy’s strategic inflection point.”
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(1), 163–173.
*LaFrance, S., & Latham, N. (2008). “Taking Stock of Venture Philanthropy.” Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 6(3), 60–65.
Letts, C. W., Ryan, W., & Grossman, A. (1997). “Virtuous capital: What foundations can learn
from venture capitalists.” Harvard Business Review, March-April, 36–44.
*Quinn Patton, M., Bare, J. & Bonnet, D. (2004). “Building strong foundation-grantee
relationships.” In M. Braverman, N. Constanine and J. Slater Foundations and evaluation:
Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy. 76-95. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
11
Weaver, L. (2014) “The promise and peril of collective impact.” The Philanthropist. (26) 1. A
special issue on collective impact. Available at http://thephilanthropist.ca/2014/07/thepromise-and-peril-of-collective-impact/
Day 5 – Community level philanthropy and group presentations
The fifth day will start by analyzing funding which is closer to a community, grassroots
level. Much of the previous days presentations and discussions will have focused on funders
that operate at an international or national level. The examination of the role of community
foundations will bring into clearer focus the work of funders who operate to bring about
social change at a more local level. The potential and limitations of community foundations
as a funding vehicle to effect significant social change will be discussed and debated using
real life cases. The emphasis will then shift in the late morning to the students’ group
presentations. Each group will present and will answer questions from students and faculty.
Finally, in the late afternoon there will be a panel discussion on emerging trends in
philanthropy and the implications of these trends for activists working to achieve social
change.
Readings
*Arrillaga-Andreessen, L., (2012). “Giving 2.0: getting together to give.” Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Winter, 31-35.
Community Foundations of Canada website http://www.cfc-fcc.ca/home.cfm
*Patten, M. & Lyons, S. (2009). “Vital signs: Connecting community needs to community
philanthropy in Canada.” Vol. 22 (1). Available at http://thephilanthropist.ca/2009/05/vitalsigns-connecting-community-needs-to-community-philanthropy-in-canada/
12