Indeed, why don't grassroots organizations receive more foundation money? What could foundations do differently to get more money into their hands? And what could grassroots organizations do differently to obtain more foundation money? These are the central questions addressed in this study.

What Is Truly Important about Grassroots Organizations?

Why Should We Care about Them?

According to grassroots scholar David Horton Smith, there are 7.5 million grassroots associations in the U.S. (compared to two million paid staff nonprofits) (1997a, p. 118-119).

He writes that "Members (of grassroots associations) learn democracy directly from participation in (their) associations, partly because nearly every grassroots association sometimes gets involved in public affairs/issues when they are relevant to continued...association existence and/or to specific...association goals (e.g., health, education.)" (1997b, p.278).

"In their path-breaking book, Verba and Nie (1972) show rather conclusively, for their U.S. national sample data, that associational 'affiliation has a positive effect on political participation over and above the social and psychological factors that lead to political participation' (p.198)" (Smith, 1997b, p. 286).

The results of a study by Gamson (1990) of a representative sample of 53 social movement groups or "challenging groups" during 145 years of American history, according to Smith, were that "about half these challenging groups achieved new advantages for their target populations (which might have been the group members themselves and/or others). Thus, half of a random, representative sample of larger scope social movement groups in American history (1800-1945) were able to change American society in the direction they sought to a significant degree..." (Smith, 1997b, p.291).

"Grassroots associations are the bedrock of the theory of citizen participation in democratic society (Pateman, 1970). Such groups are how citizens can participate most meaningfully in political decision making in a democracy. Verba and Nie (1972) state, 'Participatory acts [including associational participation] are, we believe, the major means by which citizen preferences are communicated to government, and participation has a highly valued status in democratic theory for this reason' (p.284)....Without a flourishing nonprofit sector, particularly the associational segment, a healthy democracy is impossible. Provision of citizen participation opportunities in a participatory democracy is an important impact of grassroots associations (Schlozman & Tierney, 1986; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995). Sills (1968) argues further for the related impact that grassroots associations distribute power in society, spreading it around so more people have access to it" (Smith, 1997b, p. 293).

Richard A. Couto agrees, based on his study of 24 community organizations in Appalachia. He concludes, "An increase in local social capital goods and services and moral resources appears first and foremost on the list of successes of community-based (organizations)" (p.279). "...some form of leadership development" is part of "all serious efforts at community change,...although the methods vary from organization to organization..." (p.284). He uncovered "new forms of participation and trust in networks of influence and resources" constructed and/or entered by these community organizations, and "the subtle social capital of network infiltration means political participation" (p. 279).

Smith maintains that "...all kinds of grassroots associations are to some significant extent potentially political and part of the process of maintaining a participatory democratic society. Specific major changes in the broad sweep of American history have been the result of various women's groups on women's rights,...abolitionist groups for the eventual abolition of slavery in the 1860s (Aptheker, 1989), civil rights groups for minority rights legislation in the 1960s (Blumberg, 1991), antiwar groups for the ending of the Vietnam War in the early 1970s (Chatfield, 1992), gay and lesbian rights groups for recent nondiscrimination legislation (Adam, 1987), children's rights groups for recent protective legislation (Hawes, 1991), and so on for many other egalitarian changes in our history" (Smith, 1997b, p.294).

Against this backdrop of accomplishment, grassroots organizations take on another major significance when considering Lester M. Salamon's "critique of professionalism" in the nonprofit sector that he claims "has gained increased force in recent years" (p.39). He quotes John McKnight saying, "'Through the propagation of belief in authoritarian expertise, professionals cut through the social fabric of community and sow clienthood where citizenship once grew'" (McKnight, p.10). Salamon elaborates, "Not only does this undermine community, but it also typically fails to meet the need. Far from fostering social capital and building a sense of community,...nonprofit organizations, by embracing professionalism, have become an enemy of community instead" (Salamon, p.39). Without their professionalism, grassroots associations offer greater hope to community than professionalized nonprofits.

Describing grassroots organizations engaged in community organizing, Susan Ostrander, co-chair of the Women's Funding Network, says they build community, develop leadership and educate for social justice. She notes that "Creating connection and community is seen as a way to 'sustain and nurture...political activism' (Naples, p.15); and as a strategy for 'teach[ing] others how to win their [own] collective rights' (Kaplan, p.180)"...also how "Educating about root causes and just solutions as part of organizing for social change...[involves] 'transformation of consciousness through empowerment' (Kennedy and Tilly, p.302)" (Ostrander 1998, p.5).

Writing about the work of organizations focused on immigrants' rights, gays and lesbians, disabled people and people of color, organizer Gary Delgado says, "...the ground-breaking work, the innovation, the experimentation, and the motivating livid anger that comes from the truly oppressed is at the heart of (their) work..." (p.7).

Smith concludes that "Individual grassroots association activity...tends to support participatory democracy and a civil society more broadly and also fosters the idea of service to others inside and outside one's grassroots association...In simple terms, essentially local or grassroots associational participation makes people more likely to get involved in other kinds of individual democratic political participation. Associational participation is a major engine of democratic participation...Grassroots associations of all kinds make us a democratic society in a basic way....Cumulatively, grassroots associations have a very substantial effect on American society and on the lives of its citizens" (1997b, p.296).

METHODOLOGY

To obtain answers to the questions posed above, 48 people were interviewed by telephone. Leaders of 26 grassroots organizations were interviewed, as were 22 foundation executives at 21 foundations.

"Authentic grassroots organizations" were identified as such by 12 academic and community consultants around the U.S. (See Appendix A for the list.) These academicians and community consultants were selected as people known to have studied or worked closely with grassroots organizations. Each was asked to identify three such organizations, and nearly half named additional ones. A total of 50 grassroots organizations was identified.

Each of the 50 organizations was called to conduct or schedule an interview with either the chief executive of the organization or the person suggested by the academic or community consultant. Those that were unavailable initially were repeatedly called. In the end, 26 organizations agreed to be interviewed, and were in fact interviewed, by phone.

The foundations selected were the 20 in Jenkins and Halcli's study which made the most grants to indigenous social movement organizations and the 20 which made the least, though at least one grant each. This author believed that the former would have the greatest understanding of the issues facing foundation funding of grassroots organizations, while the latter -- having funded at least one grassroots organization -- might have something to contribute to the research, particularly in contrast to those who frequently funded indigenous social movement groups (Patton). Jenkins and Halcli's study of foundation funding of social movements in 1990 was utilized to identify foundations to interview because there has been no subsequent study produced by academia which offered a better starting point.

All 40 foundations were contacted repeatedly by telephone or letter, except for a few for which no addresses or phone numbers were available after checking several directories in The Foundation Center library in Washington, DC. These calls and letters resulted in 21 foundations being interviewed: 14 of those making the most grants to indigenous social movement groups, and seven of those making the least grants for this purpose, though at least one grant each.

Foundations which had made no grants at all to indigenous social movement organizations - though they may have made grants for non-indigenous social movement organizations - were excluded from the study. The author believed that the lack of involvement of these foundations with grassroots social movement organizations would preclude them from providing understanding and practical guidance for foundation funding of grassroots groups.

Structured interview questions were used with all interviewees, encouraging open ended responses to most questions. The interview protocols were as similar as possible for both grassroots and foundation interviewees to allow for comparison of answers. Each interview took an average of 39 minutes. There was only about four minutes difference between the average interviews with foundation officials and grassroots organization leaders; the foundation interviews lasted longer.

Answers to each interview question were tracked according to the two categories of foundations identified above and reported as differences among the foundations only when the differences were large (Patton).

Responses to each question on the foundation interview protocol were compared, grouped according to commonalities, revisited for consistency within each grouping, reassigned as appropriate, and tallied. The same was done for each question on the grassroots interview protocol. The two sets of qualitative and quantitative data were then compared for each similar question. Analytic categories/groupings were chosen to best illustrate significant differences among the answers, but were arbitrary based on the author's knowledge of the field.

The Characteristics of Those Interviewed: Grassroots Organizations

David Horton Smith defines "grassroots associations" as locally based, significantly autonomous, volunteer-run, formal, nonprofit groups with official memberships of volunteers that manifest significant voluntary altruism. Many are "only semi-formal and most are not formally incorporated as separate entities" (1997a, p.115). Smith adds that some grassroots associations have paid staff -- "at most one or two" - even if "generally (they) have no employees" (1997a, p.124).

To some people, "grassroots organization" strictly means a local, community-based organization with strong connections to residents of a neighborhood. To others, the term can include city-wide organizations with solid participation from many city residents. To still others, "grassroots organizations" can be state-wide or even national (like ACORN, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club), but again, with strong participation from many within the geographical boundaries.

Delgado says community organizations nowadays often go beyond geographical boundaries to "identity and interest" (p.7). They can be communities of color, associations of immigrants, of gays and lesbians, of disabled people, to whom neighborhood, state and even national boundaries are meaningless.

The "authentic grassroots organizations" identified for inclusion in this study range from Smith's arch-typical volunteer groups to organizations Smith would contrastingly label as "paid staff nonprofits," state and national groups and Delgado's community organizations of "identity and interest." According to the 12 academicians and community consultants who identified the 50 organizations initially considered for this study, each organization has characteristics which mean a "grassroots" grounding to them, even if paid staff are employed.

What is the scope of the 26 grassroots organizations surveyed? Three are national, five are state-based, and 18 are local.

Where are these grassroots organizations located? Four geographic regions are represented: West Coast (CA, NM & OR) 5 ½ organizations, Midwest (IL, MI, OH, IN & IA) 10, Southeast (FL & TN) 4, and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast (DC, NJ & NY) 6 ½.. (The two ½ organizations are actually one organization with key offices in DC and OR).

How strongly rooted are they in their communities? How many members do they have? According to McPherson (1983), as reported by Smith, "most" grassroots associations have "far less than 50 members" (1997a, p. 116).

For the local organizations in this survey, the number of members in each organization ranges from 7 to 516, the average 75, the median 20. For the state-based and national organizations, the member range is 10 to 45,021, the average 6418, the median 757.

How many volunteers work for them? The number of volunteers per month for the local grassroots organizations is zero to 200, the average 35, the median 14. For the state-based and national organizations, the range is zero to 3300, the average 426, the median 5.

How many of the grassroots organizations interviewed are classified as 501c3 by the IRS? What is the status of the non-501c3 organizations? Of the 26 organizations interviewed, 21 are 501c3. Two others have 501c3 affiliates that collect foundation money for some of their activities (one is a 501c4 organization, the other is simply incorporated under state law with no IRS classification). Another is also incorporated under state law, with no IRS classification. The last two are unincorporated.

How many staff work for them? For all 26 organizations interviewed, the range of full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff is from zero to 240. For the 21 501c3 organizations, 504 FTE staff work for them. But excluding the two giant organizations with annual budgets of $9 million and $10 million (which have 314 FTE staff between them), only 190 FTE staff work for the other 19 501c3 groups, an average of 10 ½ each. The non-501c3 organizations average five FTE staff each.

Noted earlier, Smith says that some grassroots organizations have paid staff -- "at most one or two" -- even if "generally (they) have no employees" (1997a, p.124). According to Delgado, the "average staff size for a local community organization is four people" (p.13). The organizations surveyed here, therefore, are, on average, larger than the grassroots organizations of Smith and the community organizations of Delgado.

On what major public issues do the grassroots organizations surveyed focus their energies? All 26 organizations surveyed identified their major issues:

16 are working on children's advocacy (especially for low income children); rights and opportunities of women, racial/ethnic minorities (including Appalachian rural whites, Middle Easterners, foreign born and immigrants as well as the major groups) and gays and lesbians; and cultural/community development.

14 groups are focusing on urban economic development/renewal; housing; basic neighborhood issues (such as crime, violence, drugs, gang prevention, youth alternatives, parks and recreation, welfare reform, living wage); health; education; and workforce development.

8 grassroots organizations are concentrating on the environment.

3 work on peace, world order and human rights.

Most of the organizations are seeking to make an impact on several different issues, very few are single issue organizations.

How do the grassroots organizations function? All 26 grassroots organizations identified their major activities. The number to the left below indicates how many organizations were involved in each activity.

17 - Community organization and leadership training.

16 - Educational programs (ranging from newsletters to computer classes, parenting training, immigrants rights workshops and seminars on flower arranging).

15 - Public policy advocacy (including lobbying and public education for administrative and legislative changes).

14 - Public education through media, other public communications (no lobbying).

13 - Other community services (ranging from job training and counseling to developing low income and affordable housing, emergency food bank, day care centers and women's leadership activities).

9 - Research/policy development (domestic violence and immigration; student research; other).

5 - Legal services/litigation.

3 - Other (economic development; developing collaborations between faith community and community development organizations; housing and small business development).

See Appendix B for a more complete listing of the major activities undertaken by the grassroots organizations included in the study.

What is the current funding of the grassroots organizations surveyed? The 26 grassroots groups surveyed have total annual revenues ranging from $1500 to $10 million. Average revenues are $1.2 million. Their median revenues, however, are but $367,000. Excluding two huge groups raising $9-10 million each, who little resemble the others, the average total annual revenues for the other 24 groups surveyed are only $555,000, the median $350,000.

Smith reports that "Grassroots associations generally tend to have...small annual budgets (usually much under $25,000 per year)" (1997a, p. 124). His study of 51 grassroots associations in one suburb indicated that they had average annual revenues of $7805, median $2000 (1997a, p.125).

According to Delgado, the "lack of resources" is a major limit of community organizations. "The...budgets average in the $120-160,000 range" (p.13).

The grassroots organizations included in this study then are much larger than the grassroots associations in Smith's one suburb, and somewhat larger than the community organizations with which Delgado is familiar, though his budget numbers were from 1992, and this study's numbers are circa 1999.

How much of their revenue is from foundations? The foundation grant revenue for all the grassroots organizations ranges from zero (four groups) to $3.6 million. The average is $407,000, but the median is half that at $212,500. As a percentage of total revenue, the grassroots groups' foundation grants range from zero to 95%. The average is 40%, the median 41%.

What was their proportion of governmental income? It ranged from 0% to 99%, the average being 22%, but the median is 1%.

See Appendix C for more information about the grassroots groups interviewed for this study.

The Characteristics of Those Interviewed: Foundations

To repeat, the foundations selected for inclusion in this study were those in Jenkins and Halcli's research which made the most grants to indigenous social movement organizations and those which made the least, though at least one grant each. There were 14 interviewed from the first category and seven from the latter.

What are the grants of the foundations interviewed? The 21 foundations interviewed have annual grants ranging from $90,000 to $388 million (circa 1997). Average grants are $26.5 million (a misleading number as only two foundations have more than this amount); the median is $1.9 million (a better indication of who was interviewed). Excluding the Ford Foundation ($388 million), the average grants are $8.4 million, the median $1.85 million.

What are the assets of the foundations surveyed? The 21 foundations included in the study have assets ranging from $100,000 to $9.6 billion. Average assets are $643 million, the median $24.5 million. Excluding the Ford Foundation ($9.6 billion), the average assets are $172 million, the median $23 million.

Compared to all 42,000 grant-making foundations in the U.S., larger foundations by both assets and grants are over-represented in this study. Foundations with assets under $10 million or grants under $100,000 per year are under-represented.

What are other salient characteristics of the foundations studied? Of the 21 foundations, 15 are private foundations, two are church organizations and four are public foundations. The private foundations have 99.7% of the assets of the foundations in this study. The church organizations and public foundations each have an average of only $9 million in assets.

See Appendix D for more information on the foundations included in this study.

FINDINGS & COMMENTS

The overwhelming majority of grassroots organizations do not think they receive an "adequate" level of support from foundations.

No definition of "adequate" was provided to any of those interviewed. They were asked to supply their own definitions.

Six of the 26 grassroots organizations believe they currently receive adequate funding from foundations.

The rest respond to the question about adequate funding with answers ranging from a simple "no" to "absolutely not." One added that "There's certainly more work we could do if we had more dollars." Another added, "We need a lot more." (Throughout this report, comments from people interviewed will be in Italics.)

Susan Ostrander has written of "the...decline in the role of the state" which requires "women to turn more and more to alternative sources to support the work of creating change" (1998, p.1). Grassroots groups of all types have had to face this situation.

Ostrander adds, "Activists, practitioners, and scholars alike recognize that obtaining funding -- especially for organizations that engage in advocacy or organizing for change -- is 'one of the most vexing problems' that nonprofit organizations face (Reinelt, p.85)," adding further that "the amount of time and energy that it takes to deal with...'a bewildering array of money sources' as a condition of keeping an organization alive is considerable (Gronbjerg, p.22)" (Ostrander, 1998, pp.2,8).

Half the foundations interviewed agree that grassroots organizations do not receive an "adequate" level of foundation support.

However, the other half of the foundations interviewed think grassroots organizations do receive adequate support, at least from the limited resources of their own foundations.

Foundations are torn between knowing that the grassroots organizations' needs are great, but that foundation resources - especially their own - are so limited.

One says unequivocally, "No one provides adequate support." But other foundations speak more of their limitations: "The demand is much greater than our dollars." "We give 90% of our grant-making budget for grassroots organizations. We couldn't provide any more." "We provide a level of support reflective of the size of our endowment and staff." "We provide adequate support given our program goals."

A clear majority of the grassroots organizations believe that responsibility to expand foundation grants to grassroots organizations is 50% theirs and 50% foundations.'

Yet, few of the foundations surveyed think the deal is 50:50.

Half the foundations interviewed believe that grassroots organizations have greater responsibility to expand foundation dollars to grassroots groups. (After all, they say, grassroots organizations' survival and effectiveness are at stake.)

But the reverse is felt by one-third of the grassroots organizations, who think that foundations have decidedly more responsibility to expand funding for grassroots groups. ("They have the money and the power," as one grassroots leader succinctly puts it.) Many foundations agree.

To create a "major positive impact" on their organizations, grassroots leaders say they need a substantial increase in their current foundation grants. The median amount cited is a doubling of their foundation income (i.e., 100% increase).

Foundations think a 250% increase is necessary.

The median 100% increase in foundation grants desired by grassroots organizations would be a 43% expansion in their total annual revenues from all sources. This is a modest desire, by any standards. By contrast, the 250% increase in foundation grants that foundations think grassroots organizations need would be a doubling of the organizations' total revenues.

Grassroots groups and foundations differ widely among themselves over how much foundation grants should be increased. Grassroots organizations want from zero increase to over 100 times current foundation dollars. Foundations suggest a lesser range -- from a zero increase to 20 times existing grants.

The foundations which frequently fund grassroots groups are much more generous in wanting to increase foundation grants to the grassroots than the foundations which only infrequently fund them. Perhaps the former see the need more clearly.

A "major positive impact" on the grassroots organizations by additional foundation grants would be quite different things for each organization, though there are commonalities.

Half the organizations say that hiring additional staff or keeping staff would be the major impact. Some don't go beyond this simple thought. Most, however, talk about how more staff will "strengthen program," expand their program, help them "gain momentum," increase their "organizational base," do foundation development, undertake research, expand the number of issues on which they work, and much more.

For a couple organizations, the impact might be to create a cash reserve. Another two organizations talk about stabilizing their organizations with the extra money, not having to worry about replacing a current huge grant that terminates, or always hustling to replace several expiring grants.

Or they might be enabled to meet their strategic plans for growth and the concomitant budget.

A couple organizations talk about implementation of ambitious specific plans on the books, including impacting the whole community in ways they have only dreamed of.

See the box on the next page for grassroots leaders' own comments on what major positive impact additional foundation grants would have on their organizations. The findings preceding have been closely drawn from these comments.

Two-thirds of the grassroots organizations believe they do not get an adequate level of core or general operating support from foundations. Zero-60% of their foundation grants is for core funding, the average and the median being 25%.

The others, which get between 80-100% of their foundation dollars as core support (except for one at 33%), feel quite comfortable with their level.

Those who believe they should have more core support, offer the following reasons:

We could be more flexible; it would be easier to build long term capacity.

We wouldn't have to do so many little specific projects.

We could do what we wanted!

You can't do a project if you can't do your core work; you have to take care of basic needs, just like for a family.

Project dollars don't pay for essential overhead costs.

Core support is essential to do actual programs, to maintain the organization, to continue the organization.

You need core support for necessary shifts in your program; you can't shift so easily if you are locked into funded projects.

We need core support to make us a stronger group.

Grassroots organizations with paid staff, or with mixed paid and volunteer staff, are much more likely to obtain foundation grants than organizations with just volunteer staff, or with no staff, only a volunteer board of directors.

Why do some grassroots organizations get funded and others not? What kind of staff do the successful organizations have? The foundations active in funding indigenous movement groups mostly fund organizations with paid staff, while foundations which only occasionally fund indigenous groups generally make grants to them when they have mixed paid and volunteer staff.

This is not to say that organizations with only volunteer staff or no staff at all never get foundation grants. They do. But the odds are longer for them

When asked why grassroots organizations do not get more foundation dollars, grassroots organizations principally blame foundations for denying them the money.

Grassroots leaders' comments fall into two basic camps. They primarily fault foundations because of their funding decisions, i.e., foundations make the "wrong" decisions. And they also significantly blame foundations' bureaucracies and policies.

Only two grassroots leaders identify social class as the issue as to why foundations don't fund grassroots groups. One says, "Foundation program people are not my peers, they don't know what we are about." Another says, "Foundations are prejudiced against the grassroots."

Foundations agree that they are primarily to blame for the very limited funding of grassroots organizations.

Three-quarters of the foundations who are leaders in funding indigenous social movements squarely place the blame on foundations for the scarcity of foundation grants given to grassroots organizations, while only half the foundations who only occasionally fund indigenous movements blame foundations for this.

Typical foundation comments are not a lot different from those of grassroots leaders. Like grassroots leaders, foundation officials primarily fault foundations because of their funding decisions.

Also, like grassroots leaders, foundation officials significantly blame themselves for not making grants to grassroots organizations because of foundations' bureaucratic and policy issues.

So grassroots and foundations appear to see eye to eye for the latter's culpability for too little grassroots funding. This, however, is not so. There is a big difference between their viewpoints: foundations also place substantial blame on themselves because of the gap in social class and culture between foundation people and grassroots people, whereas, as noted above, only two grassroots leaders mentioned this.

Foundation leaders comments about this follow on page 19. But what expresses this social class and culture gap best are the following comments: "Foundations don't share the politics of grassroots organizations." "...it is not the culture of philanthropy to change power structures." "Foundations have a distaste for divisiveness, which grassroots organizations are perceived to embody; foundations are populated by corporate and other people who are likely to be targets of grassroots action."

Carson also has some ideas about why indigenous groups do not get more foundation funding. He questions why "...institutional philanthropy has not played a more prominent role in supporting...social justice advocacy..." for people of color, early white ethnics and women (p.270). But he thinks that "the reticence of foundations in this area is understandable. In general, foundations are created by wealthy people who have benefitted from the status quo and who, in social matters, are likely to be more conservative than progressive...Another explanation for the reactive rather than proactive involvement of institutional philanthropy in social justice issues has to do with the racial and ethnic composition of the boards and staffs of foundations....A total of 90% of foundation governing boards and 84% of foundation professional staffs consist of white Americans" (p.270).

Covington also addresses this latter issue: "Most of the projects developed by community foundations to impact poverty or discrimination were designed and implemented by people whose credentials, social status, and occupational status would generally identify them as members of the community elite..." (p.8).

Carson adds, "it is important to note that foundations have good reason to be concerned that social justice advocacy might inadvertently lead to greater scrutiny from Congress" (p.270), since many hold the Ford Foundation - and its grants for grassroots action, e.g., selected voter registration in Black Cleveland and Chicano San Antonio; and school decentralization in New York City - principally responsible for the Tax Reform Act of 1969 which set forth most of the laws and regulations that govern private foundations today.

Grassroots and foundation leaders' comments in the boxes on the next two pages articulate much more varied and in-depth reasons why grassroots organizations do not get more foundation grants than the summary above.

When the question is personalized, that is, asking grassroots leaders why their proposals get turned down by foundations (instead of asking why grassroots organizations do not get more foundation dollars), a few grassroots leaders respond that every good proposal cannot be funded, while most state that foundation guidelines, arbitrary decisions and ignorance of grassroots organizations are key reasons.

Only half the grassroots leaders answer the question about why their proposals don't get funded. Most seem perplexed by the question. A few acknowledge that every good proposal cannot be funded and a few more have no idea why they were turned down. Most who answer point to foundation guidelines, arbitrary decisions and ignorance of their organizations as the culprits:

The foundation's guidelines were not a good fit for us.

We didn't match their priorities.

Our issue is a tough issue; some who fund children's issues say it's a women's issue, others who fund women's issues say it's a children's issue.

We were shopping in the dark, the foundation's foci don't exactly match ours.

Their guidelines and priorities are always changing.

They don't understand us, we do real stuff, we don't write up plans for ideal programs.

They have too many restrictions.

Some only fund in one state.

Our geography didn't match.

The foundations make their decisions arbitrarily.

Our politics are considered Marxist due to our networks with Latin American groups which challenge authoritarian regimes.

They were "political" in funding other human rights groups than us.

They were "screwballs," we had a board sponsor, who said she'd get us money, but didn't.

Everybody (foundations and activists alike) thinks change occurs in different ways, some write their Senators, others sit in tree-tops.

They give to large groups, not us.

We were too big for them.

They did not know us.

They just didn't know us.

We have no relationship with them.

While grassroots organizations principally blame foundations for denying them more foundation grants, they also see themselves as part of the problem -- though to a lesser extent.

Foundations agree.

Grassroots leaders are quite candid about why their organizations are at fault. Mostly they believe they don't have the skills or capacity:

• Our Executive Director is a mediocre fund raiser.
• We may not be good enough at building relationships.
• We haven't adequate capacity to submit proposals.
• We have infrastructure problems: we don't have the right kind of resource people; our data base functions poorly.
• We are evolving, we don't have expertise to write grant proposals.
• We don't have ability to tell our story clearly enough, nor do we have the numbers to document it.

But grassroots leaders also plead ignorance as to why they don't raise more foundation money:

• We are ignorant, not aware of opportunities.
• We and other community organizations have a lack of sophistication about how to seek foundation grants.
• We are so new as a formal organization.

And they recognize that their lack of effort plays a role:

• We don't do enough asking.
• We haven't tried hard enough to get more grants.
• We have to get out and knock on doors.
• We haven't actively pursued this foundation fund raising enough.

Grassroots organizations also say frequently that they don't have the time necessary to obtain more grant money.

When asked why they don't get more money from foundations, one-quarter of the 26 organizations interviewed say they have "no time" to do more fund raising. When asked if they know other foundations that might have funded them if they had submitted proposals, 60% of the 26 organizations acknowledge they do, but most say they have "no time" to prepare the proposals.

Nor do they submit an adequate number of proposals.

The 26 grassroots organizations surveyed submitted 1175 proposals last year, but three organizations alone sent in 800 of these. Thus, the other 23 organizations submitted 375 proposals, for which they received funding for 235 (a 63% success rate).

In the author's experience as the chief fund raiser for a 23-year-old social change advocacy organization, the above numbers mean that grassroots groups did not submit enough proposals. The author was always conservative in only submitting proposals to those foundations from which he thought his organization had some chance of getting funding. But this meant he usually submitted 2-3 times as many proposals as were ultimately funded, a 33-50% success rate.

However, a rule of thumb of professional fund raisers is to submit 6-10 proposals for every one they expect to be funded, which is only a 10-17% success rate.

Like grassroots leaders, foundations say that grassroots organizations' limited capacity and lack of skills are the biggest problems keeping them from getting more foundation grants.

In fact, two-thirds of the foundation responses make these same points:

• Grassroots organizations are often weak; they don't have tons of dollars; they don't have institutional weight; and they are too dependent on one person -- the founder-leader.
• They don't have enough capacity to begin with to do development work.
• They don't have fancy development staffs; some foundations want 40-page proposals.
• National umbrella groups don't really connect with their own base of grassroots organizations; their structures have ossified.
• Grassroots groups are very localized; they don't have the larger perspectives that foundations want.
• The environmental field requires scientific and economic information for developing and advocating environmental policy; grassroots organizations don't have this.
• Their infrastructure is smaller, there is less of it; this makes it hard to raise dollars.
• Some funders don't think grassroots organizations have the capacity to spend money well and wisely, or to track it.

Only one-sixth of the time do foundations cite grassroots organizations' ignorance and lack of sophistication concerning foundation opportunities and ways when blaming them for not getting more foundation money.

Surprisingly, no foundations blame grassroots organizations' lack of effort, even though this is on grassroots leaders' list of reasons for their failure to attract more foundation grants.

Three foundations, who only occasionally fund indigenous movement groups, cite the threatening or very different nature of grassroots organizations as to why they don't get more money:

• Grassroots organizations challenge the current ways of thinking, therefore the comfort level of foundations.
• Grassroots organizations may be less safe and stable, therefore are unlikely to appeal to our corporate foundation and its business objectives.
• Grassroots groups have a lot of fraud; foundations don't really know to whom they are giving or for what; a grassroots organization board who is not well known, will not get money.

When asked why they get foundation funding, grassroots leaders cite three basic reasons:

• Relationships matter,
• Their track records and capacity are important, and
• Their organizations fit with foundations' programs.

Foundation leaders make more varied responses when asked why they give grants to some grassroots groups and not to others.

Foundations cite the same three basic reasons that grassroots groups do. But foundations identify four additional important rationales that none of the grassroots leaders mention:

• The nature of proposals and plans,
• Involvement in networks,
• Community base, membership and non-grant income, and
• Foundation processes.

The comments on the next two pages by both grassroots and foundation leaders provide much more detail about each of the above reasons why some grassroots organizations get funded and others do not.

Asked to characterize their "best" relationships with foundations, nearly half the grassroots groups express quintessential partnership feelings, often starting their responses with "We..."

What do relationships have to do with foundation funding? What characterizes foundations' "best" relationships with grassroots organizations? As indicated above, both grassroots and foundation leaders think relationships are important in foundation grant-making to grassroots organizations.

Each grassroots leader was asked to "Describe your organization's best relationship with a foundation." Some express a simple appreciation for how particular foundations operate. Often they just appreciate the grant money the foundations have provided. However, nearly half the grassroots organizations express quintessential partnership feelings, often starting their responses with "We..."

Foundation leaders also think in terms of partnership and mutual benefit when asked to "Describe their best relationships with grassroots organizations." Sixty percent of their responses describe relationships characterized by mutual benefit: partnership, reciprocal and long term. The other responses identify grantees' programs or success as the relationship focus (30%) or paternalism/maternalism ("We gave them their first grant") (10%).

The comments on the next two pages provide thick detail concerning both grassroots and foundation conceptions of their "best" relationships with each other.

Asked to characterize their "worst or most disappointing" relationships with foundations, grassroots groups talk about problems during the application process, the lack of institutional consistency, and the arbitrary and unilateral nature of foundation decision-making processes.

What characterizes grassroots groups' "worst" relationships with foundations? Each grassroots leader was asked to "Describe your organization's worst or most disappointing relationship with a foundation."

The application stage for first-time grants is the scene of half the grassroots groups' worst relationships with foundations. Basically, the issue here is the inability of the grassroots organizations and the foundations to connect in any human way.

Sometimes the criticism of foundations runs deeper than simply not connecting. Lack of institutional consistency lies beneath many complaints. Sometimes the inconsistency is simply in money terms. For example, grassroots grantees do not understand why a foundation would support them for three or four years, then abandon them.

Sometimes it's just the sheer arbitrary and unilateral nature of the foundation decision-making processes that cause grassroots leaders to throw up their hands in exasperation.

Asked to "describe their worst or most disappointing relationship with a grassroots organization," foundations identify grantees who keep key information a secret, lie to them, steal grant funds, and do not deliver programmatically.

When grantees keep key information a secret and don't tell their foundation grantors, or lie to the foundations, the latter often describe these as "worst or most disappointing" relationships.

Stealing grant funds, not surprisingly, leads to poor relationships.

Half the time foundations label relationships "worst or disappointing" because grassroots organizations have not delivered programmatically.

The comments on the next two pages by both grassroots and foundation leaders reveal the great variety and depth of the "worst or most disappointing" relationships between grassroots groups and foundations.

The foundations interviewed identified the foundations which they thought were doing the "best job" in funding grassroots organizations.

They identified 19 foundations. They were also asked to tell why these particular foundations were singled out. Their reasons are listed below.

For some, the answer is simple: "they fund who we fund":

• They fund the same kind of groups we are funding.
• They fund a lot of the same grassroots groups we do.

Another thinks the world is too complex for simple answers:

• All the foundations I think do the "best job" fund different things and do things in different ways.

Others identify the "best" funders of grassroots groups as foundations which focus on what is funded:

• They do the "best job" funding grassroots organizations because that is their primary focus.
• They fund collective grassroots organizing which reinforces the media work each organization does.
• They fund social change, activist decision-making and organizations with integrity.
• They groups they fund are generally on the "cutting edge," figuring out better strategies in a larger context.
• They are open to capacity building, they are willing to fund more than once.
• The foundation funds capacity building and gives operational support; it also makes grants through re-granting institutions or other mechanisms outside itself, which enables it to know better who it is funding.

Still others believe that foundation values or savvy is the key characteristic of the "best" funders of grassroots organizations:

• They are values driven, they are activist.
• They have the sense of how to get things moving, they know media and politics; they like to connect their grantees, let them know what is going on; they encourage "political" activity.
• They have clearly identified what "empowerment" is and how community organizing creates empowerment
• Some people are very adept at using the proper language to get it through their foundation staff and boards; others hire people who come from social justice backgrounds; and some do good strategic thinking about their funding.

And some foundations are the "best" because they are partners with their grassroots grantees or work very closely with them:

• They see their grantees as partners; they do more than just give money, they convene grantees in a broad interest field; they are getting the best feedback from their grantees.
• They have good relationships with their grantees.
• I know their work better; they have smaller portfolios of grants, therefore, they can be holistic with their grantees.
• They have the respect of the people they fund, even of the people they do not fund.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION ACTION

Recommendations for foundation action will first be presented -- because foundations have greater leeway to change their grant-making and associated behaviors -- to be followed by recommendations for grassroots action.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH FOLLOW ARE MADE BY THE INTERVIEWEES, NOT, I REPEAT, NOT BY THE AUTHOR.

The 26 grassroots and 22 foundation leaders surveyed offer many recommendations for foundation action. Most of these recommendations break out into two major categories - that foundations should provide more funds or redirect funds for the grassroots, and that foundations should expand their knowledge about or relationships with the grassroots. Grassroots leaders are much more supportive of these two major sets of recommendations (90%) than foundation officials (55%), nevertheless, the latter support them more than they do any other recommendations.

FOUNDATIONS SHOULD PROVIDE MORE FUNDS, OR REDIRECT FUNDS, FOR GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS.

The specific funding recommendation garnering the strongest support was:

1. Fund capacity building. This has many meanings. It means to help organizations early on, to help them to become more effective, to fund infrastructure and administration, to expect infrastructure development to take longer than four years, perhaps to give a larger percentage of grant dollars for training and skill development rather than for programs and, above all, to provide core support, investing in organizations instead of programs.

The funding recommendations receiving the next level of support were:

2. Fund technical assistance.
3. Make more grants direct to grassroots organizations rather than through intermediary organizations.
4. Reward results.
5. Make multi-year grants.
6. Fund agendas determined by the grassroots rather than by foundations.
7. Make larger grants.

Other funding recommendations mentioned were:

8. Fund empowerment.
9. Provide matching grants.
10. Grant seed money.
11. Give money to foundations currently funding grassroots organizations.
12. Create set-aside amounts for grassroots organizations.
13. Use relationships with other foundations to leverage more money for grassroots grantees.

In support for these recommendations, Gary Delgado says that, "While canvassing, the solicitation of church support, and individual membership dues have raised up to 70% of the annual income for a local group, these methods don't support expansion...External support for most community organizations is spotty, small and inconsistent." (p.36)

"The most under-served constituencies," he adds, "...include communities of color; immigrant-rights groups; and networks to support the development of effective organizations in the gay and lesbian, women's, and disabled communities." (p.16)

In a study of 20 small women's organizations in Boston, Susan Ostrander ascertained that "No single method of raising money was seen as particularly reliable" (1998, p. i).

Richard Couto's study of 24 Appalachian community organizations led him to conclude that "community change to promote increased social and economic equality is a long-term and difficult process; and prevailing in that process requires a combination of human and financial resources and leadership from within and outside of the local community" (p.271).

Community organizing "has always been tremendously undercapitalized," Delgado observes. "If the philanthropic community were to infuse capital into the field strategically, not only would funders make a vital contribution to (community organizing) practice, (but) replicating some of community organizing's leadership development models would make an important contribution to the whole field of community development." (p.15)

FOUNDATIONS SHOULD EXPAND THEIR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OR RELATIONSHIPS WITH GRASSROOTS COMMUNITIES AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS.

The specific knowledge/relationship recommendations obtaining the greatest support were:

1. Do more outreach.
2. Seek to better understand grassroots organizations.
3. Do more site visits.

The knowledge/relationship recommendations with the next level of support were:

4. Add "our people" to foundation staffs and boards (or add more of "our people").
5. Build better relationships with the grassroots.
6. Change foundation thinking from over-valuing academic and professional thinking to what people care about.
7. Have a different system to evaluate what community organizations do; the products of community organization and leadership training (information to our members, organized representation, policy change) are different from that of professional policy institutes (research and policy reports).

Other knowledge/relationship recommendations mentioned were:

8. Talk more with other funders.
9. Understand how public subsidies go to corporations (and not to us).

Appalachian researcher Couto urges outsiders to understand how "The unyielding context in which (community organizations) work ...disappoints (them) and tarnishes the glimmer of the democratic prospect for them...The multiple demands of an overload of work, keeping up with funding, creating and maintaining the group's cohesion internally and identity externally, and internal and external conflict (contribute) to the burnout of staff " (p.282). "Improvement in the democratic prospect does not come easily, quickly, or irrevocably. There are no shortcuts and many disappointments" (p. 294).

In addition to the two major sets of recommendations preceding, some interviewees make three additional recommendations:

FOUNDATIONS SHOULD IMPROVE THEIR APPLICATION AND GRANT-MAKING PROCESSES.

Foundations tend to make this recommendation more than grassroots leaders.

• Accept and act upon applications throughout the year.
• Accept more cold proposals.
• Accept more common grant applications.
• Use common proposal format, many funders do.
• Help grassroots groups early on, help them develop their proposals.
• Provide help on how the foundation works and how grassroots groups can crack it.
• We are revising our web-site, adding more information.
• Alter the proposal review process, so that it is not the same for every organization that seeks grants.
• Revise foundation guidelines considering grassroots organizations.

FOUNDATIONS SHOULD PARTNER MORE WITH OTHER FOUNDATIONS.

Foundations almost exclusively make this recommendation.

• Encourage other funders to do more for grassroots organizations, through established institutions like the Council on Foundations' annual conference.
• Partner through special interest funder groups, like the Neighborhood Funders Group and Hispanics in Philanthropy, and through regional associations of foundations, like Donors Forum in Chicago, especially when they are open to both funders and community organizations.
• Encourage partnerships with religious funders to get more funding to the grassroots.
• The Interfaith Funders Faith-Based Initiative is a good model of partnership, as is the Fund for a New Los Angeles.
• Lobby colleagues in the foundation world to get involved on specific issues, like funding public education for pro-choice.

Delgado recommends, "Because it is not always structurally feasible for funders to evaluate the effectiveness of local (community organizing) groups, it may make sense for funders to develop a partnership re-granting program with local training intermediaries that could support local organizing efforts and develop collaborative efforts." (p.17)

Of course, foundations partnering with other foundations always raises a red flag. When does cooperation to provide more money and assistance to grassroots groups stop, and the operation of a cabal starts that limits or stops funding for the grassroots organizations that get on the wrong side of a funder or two?

FOUNDATIONS SHOULD RAISE MORE MONEY TO GIVE AWAY.

Only foundations make this recommendation.

This recommendation is aimed at public charity-foundations, such as Vanguard Foundation in San Francisco, Haymarket Peoples Fund in Boston, Crossroads Fund in Chicago and most women's funds -- which have limited endowments, and annually must raise most of the money they give away each year.

• Look at alternative ways of raising money, like major gifts and direct mail.
• Set up special funds within the foundations to encourage additional contributions, like a women's foundation which set up a women of color fund.
• Make aggressive contact with more potential donors and big foundations to get more money to give away.
• Do P.R. kinds of things; we have really good stories to tell, but we don't do enough good P.R.; this would broaden understanding of our foundation, the issues and our grantees.
• We've just begun a web-page, we're doing more print media advertising, more press releases, more follow up with the media.
• Seek donor advised funds for grassroots organizations.

WORDS OF CAUTION by GRASSROOTS SCHOLAR

DAVID HORTON SMITH

Grassroots scholar David Horton Smith, however, offers words of caution to foundations regarding funding "volunteer grassroots associations." He says, "when external grants enter the picture, the seeking and having of this money tends to deviate the group from its initial purpose...most grassroots associations do not need foundation grants for operations if they are healthy...With a group that already (has) paid staff...the situation is different...Only grassroots organizations that (have) paid staff really need (foundation) funding" (Smith, 1999).

Regarding grassroots associations dependency on external funding, Smith cites scholars Blum and Ragab (1985) and Hunter and Staggenborg (1986) in cautioning that "grassroots associations...tend to decline and lose their capacity for political action...when they become significantly dependent on external grants or contracts." (Smith, 1997, p. 277).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRASSROOTS ACTION

THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH FOLLOW ARE MADE BY THE INTERVIEWEES, NOT, I REPEAT, NOT BY THE AUTHOR.

GRASSROOTS GROUPS SHOULD MARKET THEMSELVES MORE EFFECTIVELY.

This is the most important recommendation from foundations.

What's strange here is that only a few grassroots organizations comprehend this loud recommendation from foundations. And remember, this recommendation is not just from any foundations, but from those with solid histories of funding grassroots social movement activities.

Often grassroots groups do little or no marketing of themselves. Why is this? Because they are doing "good" things for the benefit of the community, they think that other organizations, the media, and funders should recognize this by according them due respect, attention and funding. This is unbelievably naive considering that there are millions of other grassroots groups also doing "good" things who also want respect, attention and funding, and that funders, being scarce as well as human, have only limited time and energy in which to identify and learn about who is doing what particularly well out in the world.

How do grassroots groups market themselves more effectively? Grassroots organizations need to develop public identities (i.e., become publicly known for something important), use the media, construct more attractive funding packets, and not the least, document what they've done and tell their stories better.

Once getting past the preceding recommendation, there is generally substantial agreement between foundation and grassroots leaders about what the latter should do to raise more foundation grant monies, as the recommendations below indicate.

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD COMMIT MORE RESOURCES FOR FUND RAISING, AND SEEK TO INCREASE THEIR FUND RAISING SAVVY.

The grassroots groups believe they need to do this even more than foundations.

They say their executive directors or other staff need to commit more time to fund raising, they need to hire part-time or full-time development staff, and to hire someone to teach them how to do fund raising.

Grassroots leaders often think of this situation as a double-edged sword. With one side you cut your program to provide more resources for fund raising; with the other side you cut your fund raising potential by spending more on program. We are not dealing with swords, however, but with pies! Once I finally made a decision as executive director of a small advocacy organization to spend less of my time on (exciting) program work, and more of my time on (boring) fund raising and to hire a part-time development professional, our organization ultimately trebled its annual revenues (mostly from foundations). The pie can be bigger than it is now. My work, by the way, became much more exciting with a trebled budget.

GRASSROOTS GROUPS SHOULD DO THEIR HOMEWORK TO IDENTIFY MORE FOUNDATION FUNDING POSSIBILITIES, THEN SUBMIT MORE PROPOSALS.

Foundations and grassroots leaders agree on this recommendation.

It is a fact that grassroots groups do not submit an adequate number of proposals. Of the 26 grassroots organizations interviewed, 23 submitted only 375 proposals last year, for which they received funding for 235 (a 63% success rate).

Yet a rule of thumb of professional fund raisers is to submit 6-10 proposals for every one they expect to be funded, which is only a 10-17% success rate. Grassroots organizations wanting more foundation funding must submit a lot more proposals than they currently do.

In thinking about how to identify more foundation funding possibilities and submit more proposals, the grassroots groups suggest two things: using the Internet more to obtain foundation guidelines and setting goals, such as submitting two proposals a month.

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD CONTACT THE FOUNDATIONS IDENTIFIED, DO FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE CALLS AND OFFICE VISITS, AND GENERALLY SEEK TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE FOUNDATION STAFF OR TRUSTEES THAT SEEM INTERESTED IN THEIR WORK.

Both foundation and grassroots leaders agree on this.

On how to do this, grassroots leaders understand that pedestrian things have to be done: make follow-up phone calls, meet with possible foundation donors, cultivate these contacts, get out of their hometowns to talk with the foundations, and seek to build relationships over time. There is nothing new here, but necessary actions to raise new grant monies.

The key is to set a goal of building relationships with individual foundation staff and trustees who indicate any interest in one's work.

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD CONTACT PEOPLE OTHER THAN FOUNDATIONS WHO CAN BE HELPFUL.

Again both foundation and grassroots leaders agree on this.

Who else could be helpful? Grassroots leaders think that they should join and participate in regional associations of grant-makers, participate in existing networks of like-minded community organizations, and organize training for other grassroots organizations to enable creation of networks where they don't now exist.

Real estate people say that the key to selling homes for good prices is "Location, Location, Location." Well, what we should understand about fund raising is, "Contacts, Contacts, Contacts." They open doors that permit one to tell one's (great!) story.

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD WORK IN CONSORTIA AND COALITIONS TO AMPLIFY THEIR WORK AND VISIBILITY.

Foundations stand alone in making this recommendation.. No grassroots leader voices it.

Partly foundations are trying to limit the number of proposals they get by telling people to work together in consortia and coalitions. But foundations are also saying that those grassroots leaders who want to accomplish big things need to think about working closely with others so they can become more visible to the world one is trying to influence, and so one truly can make things happen in a big way.

Some grassroots leaders might worry that working in consortia and coalitions could highlight their competitors for funds more than it would showcase their own organizations, particularly if they are smaller or more limited in scope than their consortia and coalition partners. The author's own experience in coalitions is that this is a fear based on reality, but that if one continues to build the relationships with foundations that are necessary to obtain grants, and tells one's story effectively, then the money will continue to flow. And coalition leaders from other organizations -- who value one's organizational contribution to the coaltion -- can often put in good words at crucial times during grant proposal reviews.

Two grassroots recommendations almost unmentioned by foundations:

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD REORGANIZE INTERNALLY.

This is the second most important grassroots recommendation on how to get more money out of foundations.

What do the grassroots leaders mean? Those unincorporated or not registered as tax exempt charities with the IRS say they should incorporate and register, to make them more eligible for foundation grants. Others say they need to "develop a lot more system," expand their organization's geographical scope, design funder-friendly programs, restructure to reflect their new activities, teach other staff to do fund raising, and modify internal staff processes so staff will better understand the fund raising process, therefore, the need for better reports and accountability.

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD PUBLICLY CHALLENGE FOUNDATIONS TO PROVIDE MORE FUNDING FOR GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS AND WHAT THEY DO.

A few grassroots organizations recommend this aggressive thought. Not surprisingly, only one foundation voices it. The whole mission of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy is similar: to challenge foundations (and United Ways and corporate grant-making programs) to provide more funding for social and economic justice. It is a hard road to go. Or, as some would say, it's a dirty job. But someone needs to do it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have been very generous with their time in advising the author in this research -- starting with the Academic Advisory Committee for the project: Louis Delgado, Craig Jenkins, Susan Ostrander, David Horton Smith and Jon Van Til. They provided advice on what to include in structured interview questions, they identified "authentic grassroots organizations" to interview, and they reviewed the second draft report and made many excellent comments. I am indebted to them for this assistance.

I am especially grateful to Craig Jenkins, who dug deep into his research files to identify the two sets of foundations to interview.

Valentin Mitev of Bulgaria was also helpful in constructing the structured interview questions.

Fourthly, the Community Consultants Advisory Panel was also very helpful in identifying "authentic grassroots organizations" to interview: Dan Delany, Pablo Eisenberg, Joan Flanagan, Art Himmelman, Steve Holmer, Eleanor LeCain, Larry Parachini and Cynthia Smith. Their ears to the ground, along with the ears of the Academic Advisory Committee, helped me construct what I think is a very good sample of grassroots organizations for the study.

Fifthly, the Aspen Institute Nonprofit Sector Research Fund and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy provided the crucial financial support for this effort. It could not have been undertaken, nor completed, without them.

In particular, at the NCRP I wish to thank the Executive Committee Oversight Subcommittee for their helpful comments both in the formative stage of the research and on the second draft report: Cindy Marano, John Echohawk, Pablo Eisenberg and Rick Cohen. After they joined the Subcommittee this summer, Paul Castro and Jo Uehara also commented on the second draft.

Most of all, I want to thank my wife, Sharon Benjamin-Bothwell, for encouragement when the going was slow and for insightful comments on both the first and second drafts. Without her "tough love," the lousy first draft could never have become a decent second draft.

However, while all the above deserve substantial credit for whatever I did right, they had nothing to do with whatever errors are discovered herein. They probably suggested I do differently whatever I ended up doing wrong.

REFERENCES

Adam, B. D. (1987). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement. Boston: Twayne.

Aptheker, H. (1989). Abolitionism: A revolutionary movement. Boston: Twayne.

Blumberg, R. L. (1991). Civil rights: The 1960s freedom struggle. Boston: Twayne.

Carson, E. D. (1999). The roles of indigenous and institutional philanthropy in advancing social justice. In C. T. Clodfelter & T. Ehrlich (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America. Bloomington, IN: The Indiana University Press.

Chatfield, C. (1992). The American peace movement. New York: Twayne.

Covington, S. (1994). Community foundations and citizen empowerment: Limited support for democratic renewal. Mimeograph. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

Couto, R. A. (with C. S. Guthrie). (1999). Making democracy work better. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Delgado, G. (1994). Beyond the politics of place: New directions in community organizing in the 1990s. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.

Gronbjerg, K. A. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social services and community development organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Hawes, J. M. (1991). The children's rights movement. Boston: Twayne.

Jenkins, J. C., & Halcli, A. (1999). Grassrooting the system? The development and impact of social movement philanthropy, 1953-1990. In E. C. Lagemann (Ed.), Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities (pp. 229-256). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Kaplan, T. (1998). Crazy for democracy: Women in grassroots movements. New York: Routledge.

Kennedy, M., & Tilly, C. (with M. Gaston). (1990). Transformative populism and the development of a community of color. In J. M. Kling & P. S. Posner (Eds.), Dilemmas of activism: Class, community, and the politics of local mobilization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits. New York: Basic Books.

McPherson, J. M. (1983). The size of voluntary organizations. Social Forces, 61, 1044-1064.

Naples, N. (Ed.). (1998). Community activism and feminist politics: Oranizing across race, class and gender. New York: Routledge.

Ostrander, S. A. (1994). Charitable foundations, social movements and social justice funding. In J. H. Stanfield II (Ed.), The nonprofit sector and social justice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Ostrander, S. A. (1998). Funding women's community nonprofit social change organizations. In Conference proceedings: Women's progress, Fifth Women's Policy Research Conference, George Washington University and the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, second edition. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Reinelt, C. (1995). Moving onto the terrain of the state: the battered women's movement and the politics of engagement. In Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women's movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Renz, L., & Lawrence, S. (2000). Foundation growth and giving estimates: 1999 preview. New York City: Foundation Center.

Renz, L., Lawrence, S., & Kendzior, J. (1999). Foundation giving. New York: Foundation Center.

Renz L., & Lawrence, S. (1992). Foundation giving. New York: Foundation Center.

Schlozman, K., & Tierney, J. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

Sills, D. L. (1968). Voluntary associations. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences: Vol. 16 (pp. 357-379). New York: Free Press.

Salamon, L. M. (1997). Holding the center: America's nonprofits at a crossroads. New York: Nathan Cummings Foundation.

Smith, D. H. (1997a). The rest of the nonprofit sector: grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing "flat earth" maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 114-131.

Smith, D. H. (1997b). Grassroots associations are important: some theory and a review of impact literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 269-306.

Smith, D. H. (1999). Dec. 9 & 11 e-mails to the author.

Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ENDNOTES

1. The Foundation Center does not classify grants to "social movements," but instead classifies grants by subject category for "civil rights and social action," "community improvement and development," "environment" and "animals and wildlife," or by type of recipient such as "civil rights groups," "alliances/equal rights organizations," "community improvement organizations," "environmental agencies" and "animal/wildlife agencies" (Renz, Lawrence & Kendzior, p. 80, Table 61 and p.95, Table 64).

While clearly Jenkins' progressive "social movement" grants would be captured in these categories, nevertheless, these Foundation Center categories include much more. For example, grants to the Nature Conservancy (often very large grants) and Animal Welfare League would be counted by the Foundation Center in the above categories, but would not be counted by Jenkins as grants to social movements. Also, grants to Local Investment Support Corporation (LISC) (also often very large grants) would be counted by the Foundation Center in the "community improvement" categories, but not by Jenkins as grants to social movements.