2008 Grantee Cumulative Impact Survey: Analysis of Results July 2008
2008 Grantee Cumulative Impact Survey: Analysis of Results July 2008
Table of Contents Executive Summary
Survey Results Organization Information Leadership Development Organizational Outcomes Community and Society Outcomes Networks and Partnerships
8 8 9 11 14 18
Appendix Examples of Policy Successes
2008 Grantee Cumulative Impact Survey:
Analysis of Results July 2008 Executive Summary The results of Marguerite Casey Foundation’s 2008 Grantee Cumulative Impact Survey reveal common approaches, achievements and challenges among grantees in its California, Deep South, Midwest, National, Southwest/U.S. – Mexico Border, and Washington Home State grantmaking regions. At the same time, the results demonstrate some divergence within and across regions, reflecting the context of their work. The results of the survey delineate the impact of the work of the Foundation’s grantees in their communities, the impact of the Foundation’s grants on its grantees, and characteristics of the grantmaking regions. The impacts can be used to draw correlations between strategies, partnerships, impacts and policy successes, enabling the Foundation to identify indicators of success and to refine its support of grantees to increase the impact of their work and the Foundation’s grantmaking. The survey findings suggest that Marguerite Casey Foundation can further amplify the impact of its grants by encouraging grantees to focus on: Organizational development Skills development in leadership development strategies Policy changes and/or civic empowerment Partnerships and networks that cross sectors and function at high levels The information also points to a number of questions for the Foundation to explore further: Leadership Development: Does the Foundation want to track changes in how/if grantees approach leadership development over time? Professional Development: What is the nature of staff development that grantees undertake, including the process and goals (e.g., conferences, networking opportunities, salary increases)? What does it mean to engage staff in organizational decision making? Why are grantees not completing leadership succession plans? How can they be supported? Partners: How are partner organizations connected? What do new partners bring? What determines what type and scope of relationships are established? How can these relationships be supported and developed? Impact of Grants on Organizations: What leads to organizations adopting new strategies? How much new funding has been leveraged by grantees, how was it leveraged and from where? Policy Impacts: What policies are most salient in each region and in each issue area? Strategies: Using this data as a baseline for comparison to future data, is there a trajectory from direct services to organizing? How do the strategies relate to the context of each region? 3
Introduction In March 2008, Marguerite Casey Foundation distributed an on-line survey to its grantees to gather information about the impact of its grants on grantees and their work for low-income families. The survey contained 22 questions. After two introductory questions, 19 questions in the survey were divided into the categories of Leadership Development, Organizational Outcomes, Community and Society Outcomes, and Networks and Partnerships. The final question asked for general comments. This report provides an analysis of the responses to identify key trends, correlations between strategies and outcomes, and how the findings can guide future Foundation efforts. The survey was sent to 239 grantees, 129 of which completed it, representing a 54% response rate. The proportion of respondents across the regions is reflective of the breakdown of grants by region. Key Findings Leadership Development The most common definition among grantees of leadership development entails providing tools, skills and training, followed by empowering individuals and mobilizing communities, highlighting a dichotomy in how grantees approach leadership development: providing training and skills development versus empowering people to advocate for themselves/engaging them in efforts to create change The overwhelming majority of grantees offer opportunities that develop the leadership of adults Organizational Outcomes The three most common strategies that grantees most commonly used funding to build organizational capacity were to: o invest in staff development, o to conduct strategic planning, and o to improve information systems The three most common results of Foundation funding on grantees were to o reached more families, they o expand the number of organizations that are partners, and o incorporate new strategies into existing programs The three most common staff professional development activities that grantees engaged in were o to engage staff in organizational decision making, to o provide staff training, and to o create individual staff development plans; Developing leadership succession plans was the least frequent organizational development activity Community and Society Outcomes The five most common policy areas that grantees worked on were 4
o education, o health, o immigration, o housing, and o community infrastructure/planning Based on the estimates, which represent data from 54% of grantees, the number of people reached in 2007 through all strategies by the grantees that responded to the survey was 2,433,000 Sixty-seven (67%) of grantees experienced a policy success that impacts families in the past three years, most commonly in Education, Housing, Criminal Justice/Prison Reform, and Health Care Networks and Partnerships Grantees most commonly communicate with partners through meetings, followed by convenings and email alerts, illustrating that in-person communications remain the most common One hundred percent of grantees work with other nonprofits, 98% work with education organizations, 96% work with government organizations, 95% work with private organizations, and 93% work with faith-based organizations. After nonprofit organizations, groups worked most frequently with educational institutions and then private sector organizations Grantees offered a range of answers when asked about their most significant impact on families, with the top three most common answers being: 1) civic engagement and empowerment of families; 2) policy changes; 3) access to information and services Regional Sketches Following are sketches of the regions that highlight where each region stood out in contrast to other regions and strong themes among grantees within each region. California Grantees: o Most frequently have budgets between $1,000,000 - $4,999,999 o Compared with other regions, equally emphasize mobilizing communities and providing tools, skills and training in how they define leadership development, rather than focusing primarily on providing tools, skills and training o Had the lowest percentage of grantees that expanded or improved office space (10%) o Most frequently cited reaching more families as the result of Foundation funding o Had the highest percentage of grantees that leveraged new funding (78%) o Health is the most frequent policy area worked on by grantees o Most commonly cite civic engagement and empowerment of families as their most significant impact Deep South Grantees: o Most frequently have budgets between $750,000 - $1,999,999 o Had the lowest percentage that conducted strategic planning (46%) o Had the highest percentage of grantees that trained the Board (58%) and improved information systems (54%) o Had the highest percentage of grantees that expanded or improved office space (31%) 5
o o o o o o
Most frequently cited reaching more families as the result of Foundation funding Education and Health are the most frequent policy areas worked on by grantees Reach more families than the other regions reach through advocacy and education, and reach more families cumulatively across all strategies than any other region Report the largest number of policy successes over the past three years (31) Report the highest number of partners at various levels, and the highest percentage that work with faith-based organizations Most commonly cite policy changes as their most significant impact
Midwest Grantees: o Most frequently have budgets between $2,000,000 - $4,999,999, with a sizable portion falling between $500,000 - $749,000 o 81% of Midwest grantees develop skills in power analysis, in contrast to 29% of Washington grantees, and the other regions range between 55-62% o Most frequently conducted strategic planning as a strategy to develop the organization, compared with all other regions that in contrast most commonly invested in staff development o Most frequently cited incorporating new strategies as the result of Foundation funding (91%), though Midwest grantees still had the highest percentage of grantees that reached more families (86%) compared with other regions o Education is the most frequent policy area worked on by grantees o Report the highest percentage of grantees that experienced a policy success (79%) o Most commonly cite policy changes as their most significant impact National Grantees: o Typically have the largest budgets (67% are larger than $2,000,000) o Only 10% involve community members in organizational planning; the other regions range between 67 â€“ 86% o Helped the largest number of adults in leadership development o Had the smallest percentage of grantees that help youth in leadership development o Had the highest percentage that conducted strategic planning (77%) o Most frequently cited expanding the number of partners as the result of Foundation funding o Education and Health are the most frequent policy area worked on by grantees o Reach more families than the other regions reach through direct services and organizing o Report the smallest number of policy successes during the past three years (10) o Most commonly cite building the capacity of community organizations as their most significant impact Southwest/U.S.- Mexico Border Grantees: o Most frequently have budgets between $750,000 - $1,999,999 o Compared with other regions, more frequently identify leadership development as empowerment as opposed to providing tools, skills and training o 100% of grantees report that they include community members as members of the Board or an Advisory Board, exceeding other regions o Most frequently cited reaching more families as the result of Foundation funding o Had the lowest percentage of grantees that reached more families (47%) o Education is the most frequent policy area worked on by grantees o Reach the smallest number of families than any other region 6
Most commonly cite civic engagement and empowerment of families as their most significant impact
Washington Home State Grantees: o Typically have the smallest budgets (57% have budgets that are $499,999 or less) o 86% offer opportunities to develop the leadership of youth, more than any other region o Had the lowest percentage of grantees that hired an organizational development consultant (5%) or trained the Board (21%) o Most frequently cited expanding the number of partners as the result of Foundation funding o Had the lowest percentage of grantees that leveraged new funding (59%) o Immigration is the most frequent policy area worked on by grantees o Report the lowest percentage of grantees that experienced a policy success (37%) o Most commonly cite shifting public discourse as their most significant impact
Implications Contributors to Success The implications of the data suggest that key contributors to systemic change success, as measured in policy successes, may include: Having large budget and organizational capacity Reaching large numbers of families Providing tools, skills and training to develop the leadership of families Investing in organizational developing, including the use of outside expertise, training the Board, and leveraging new funding Focusing on policy changes and/or civic empowerment as a key outcome Ensuring that issue education is a key strategy in reaching families Large numbers of partners and networks that are cultivated and maintained at a high level Guiding Strategies for the Foundation to Support its Grantees The survey finding can be used to guide strategies for the Foundation to support the work of its grantees, such as: Offering organizational development opportunities or information about the importance of organizational development toward building the capacity of grantees to achieve key outcomes Emphasizing skills development in leadership development strategies Encouraging a focus on policy changes and/or civic empowerment Fostering partnerships and networks that cross sectors and function at high levels Preliminary Analysis of Survey Results LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Defining Leadership Development for Movement Building 7
Grantees were asked how they define leadership development for Movement Building in an open-ended question. Responses across the regions fell most frequently into the category of Providing Tools, Skills & Training, except: California, which had the same frequency of responses in the category of Mobilizing Communities (32%) as Providing Tools, Skills & Training (32%) Southwest, in which 56% of responses fell into the category of Empowerment; Providing Tools, Skills & Training was second with 32% of responses The responses align with what would be expected. Providing issue education is often used as an entry point to engage community members in an issue or campaign. Following with community organizing, organizational leadership, planning and other strategies is consistent with the types of organizations that Marguerite Casey Foundation funds. There was limited variation between the regions, but notable divergences include the following: 100% of Southwest grantees report that they include community members as members of the Board or an Advisory Board; while the other regions reported high percentages in this strategy (68 - 85%), achieving 100% is exceptional 10% of National grantees involve community members in organizational planning; the other regions range between 67 - 86% 81% of Midwest grantees develop skills in power analysis while 29% of Washington grantees develop skills in power analysis; the other regions range between 55 - 62% The majority of grantees offer opportunities that develop the leadership of youth, though at a lesser degree than opportunities for developing the leadership of adults: 73% of grantees offer leadership development opportunities for youth compared with 98% for adults. There is a wider variation between the regions, ranging from 60% of National grantees that offer leadership development opportunities for youth to 86% of Washington grantees. By region, the breakdown is as follows: California (68%); Deep South (62%); Midwest (81%); National (60%); Southwest (82%); Washington (86%). Aggregate numbers for adults and youth were extrapolated based on the number of grantees indicating each range. While the numbers do not reflect an accurate range of the number adults and youth reached since the data reflects 54% of grantees and the responses are estimates, they can be used as indicators of how many individuals are reached and divergences between the regions. Based on the aggregate estimates, the data indicates the following: Grantees developed the leadership of at least 31,100 adults and 12,100 youth last year National grantees helped the greatest number of adults (6,500), though the range between regions was not large (lowest was the Southwest with 3,900; California had 4,500; Deep South had 6,000; Midwest had 5,300; Washington had 4,900) Midwest helped the greatest number of youth (3,100), and the range was not large (lowest was California with 900; Deep South had 1,500; National had 2,300; Southwest had 1,700; Washington had 2,600) While Washington reported the highest percentage of grantees that offered opportunities to youth (86% of grantees, as reflected in the prior question), they did not reach the
highest number of youth (the Midwest reached more) since the range of youth reached by organizations tended to be less 11% of grantees reach more than 1,000 youth per year and 5% of grantees reach more than 1,000 youth per year ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES How Grantees Used Funding to Build Organizational Capacity Grantees were asked how they used funding from Marguerite Casey Foundation to build organizational capacity. Following are the most frequent responses, in descending order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Invested in staff development (75%) Conducted strategic planning (59%) Improved information systems (50%) Trained the Board (36%) Hired an organizational development consultant (24%) Expanded or improved office space (22%) We did not invest in organizational development (9%)
Variations between the regions included the following: All but the Midwest grantees cited investments in staff development as the most common use of funding toward building organizational capacity (the Midwest grantees most frequently conducted strategic planning (70%); 60% of Midwest grantees invested in staff development, and while that number is lower than other regions, it is still a large percentage) The Deep South had the lowest percentage of grantees (46%) that conducted strategic planning; National was highest with 77% Washington had the lowest percentage of grantees (5%) that hired an organizational development consultant; National was highest with 31% California had the lowest percentage of grantees (35%) that improved information systems; Deep South was highest with 58% Washington had the lowest percentage of grantees (21%) that trained the Board; Deep South was highest with 54% California had the lowest percentage of grantees (10%) that expanded or improved office space; Deep South was highest with 31% Deep South had the lowest percentage of grantees that did not invest in organizational development (4%); California was highest with 15% (15% did not invest in organizational development) Impact of Marguerite Casey Foundation Funding Grantees were asked about the results that Marguerite Casey Foundation funding had on the organization. Following are the most frequent responses, in descending order: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Reached more families (77% of grantees) Expanded the number of organizations that are partners (76%) Incorporated new strategies into existing programs (71%) Leveraged new funding from other sources (69%) 9
5. 6. 7. 8.
Increased understanding of Movement Building concepts (66%) Hired new staff (60%) Expanded the scope of issues it addresses (59%) Involved more families in organizational planning and program delivery (52%)
The impacts of Foundation funding on grantees closely aligns with the Foundationâ€™s priorities and strategies: 1) families, 2) partnerships, and 3) new strategies. There were some variations by region: The most frequent impact of Marguerite Casey Foundation among California, Deep South and Southwest grantees was that they reached more families; Midwest grantees most frequently incorporated new strategies into existing programs; National and Washington grantees most frequently expanded the number of organizations that are partners California grantees had the highest percentage of grantees that leveraged new funding from other sources (78%); Washington grantees had the lowest (59%) Midwest grantees had the highest percentage of grantees that hired new staff (81%); Southwest grantees had the lowest (48%) Southwest and Midwest grantees had the highest percentage of grantees that reached more families (86%), with Deep South grantees (85%) and California (83%) close behind; National grantees had the lowest (47%) Deep South grantees had the highest percentage of grantees that expanded the scope of issues it addresses (65%), though the regions did not diverge much except for National grantees, which had the lowest with 47% responding that they expanded the scope of issues they address Midwest grantees had the highest percentage of grantees that incorporated new strategies into existing programs (91%) and there was a wide range between all regions, with Washington having the lowest (56%) National grantees had the highest percentage of grantees that expanded the number of partners (87%); Deep South grantees had the lowest (69%) California grantees had the highest percentage of increased understanding of Movement Building concepts (74%); National had the lowest (53%) Southwest had the highest percentage of grantees that expanded the involvement of families in program planning and delivery (71%); National grantees had the lowest (33%) Professional Development of Staff Grantees were asked what type of professional development activities their organizations engaged in for staff during 2007. The responses in all of the categories varied only slightly across the regions. The most frequent responses, in descending were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Engaged staff in organizational decision making (93%) Provided staff training (79%) Created individual staff development plans (48%) Developed leadership succession plans (25%) We did not engage in any staff leadership activities in 2007 (2%)
The percentage of grantees that developed leadership succession plans is low (25%). Given the generally high turnover rate of individuals in leadership positions in nonprofits and the 10
anticipated wave of leadership turnover as the baby boomer generation approaches retirement, the lack of attention to leadership succession planning among grantees makes them vulnerable to disruption.
COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY OUTCOMES Policy Areas Grantees were asked about the policy areas they worked on with Marguerite Casey Foundation funding in the past year. The most frequent responses were as follows, in descending order: 1. Education (61%) 2. Health (53%) 3. Immigration (46%) 4. Housing (44%) 5. Community infrastructure/planning (42%) 6. Employment and training (31%) 7. Workersâ€™ rights (30%) 8. Living wage/minimum wage (28%) 9. Criminal justice (27%) 10. Juvenile justice (27%) 11. Equitable development (23%) 12. Rights of incarcerated/children of incarcerated (16%) 13. National resources/land/water protection (14%) 14. Oher (31%) (Predatory child care, tax justice, Native American rights; two wrote in violence against women, voting rights/education, youth development, and asset building. local food policy, influencing media coverage and disaster relief. ) Similarities and differences emerged between the regions: In the Deep South, Midwest, National and Southwest regions, Education was the most frequent policy area, though the Deep South and Southwest grantees both worked on Health at the same rate as Education (58% of Deep South grantees worked on Education and Health; 75% of Midwest and National grantees worked on Education; 63% of Southwest grantees worked on Education and Health) In California, grantees most commonly worked on health (64%) In Washington, grantees most commonly worked on Immigration (61%) For the most part, the areas that grantees are working on reflect the priorities that emerged through the Equal Voice for Americaâ€™s Families campaign. The exception is child care, which was a high priority among families that participated in the campaign town halls, but it did not register highly through the survey. However, child care was not included as an option in the closed-ended question, which may have depressed the responses as three grantees wrote it in as a policy area. Grantee Strategies Grantees were asked what percentage of their work in 2007 was focused on direct services, advocacy, organizing and education. Marguerite Casey Foundation provided the following definitions in the survey: 11
Direct services: Tangible or concrete aid to individuals and families (e.g., food programs, tutoring, case management, etc.) Advocacy: Activities on behalf of low income families to influence policies and practices at local, state, tribal or national levels of government and/or private institutions Organizing: Activities such as community mobilization and collective action through which individuals shape the circumstances of their lives Education: Activities to impart information, knowledge and skills; could include one-onone services or activities that reach large numbers of people Grantees indicated what percentage of their work is focused on each strategy and the summary of responses is below.
Number of Respondents by Category
Number of Families Reached Grantees were asked how many constituents/family members their organization engaged through direct services, advocacy education and organizing in 13 areas. Grantees provided the range of constituents/families, and the data was averaged to produce cumulative estimates for each strategy and issue area. As such, the data provides an indication of the number of people reached, and are more useful as indicators of which issue areas and strategies are engaging more constituents/families rather than a reflection of the actual numbers reached. The following table provides a summary of the estimated numbers of constituents reached by region and strategy. Constituents Reached by Region and Strategy
Direct Services 12,000
Levels of Work Grantees were asked about the percentage of their work that takes place at the federal, tribal, state, county, city, school district, and neighborhood levels. Grantees seem to work at a combination of levels to varying degrees: 83% work at the federal level, 35% work at the tribal level, 98% work at the state level, 93% work at the county level, 97% work at the city level, 71% work at the school district level, and 87% work at the neighborhood level. Only nine grantees report that 91-100% of their work takes place at one level. Policy Success When asked if grantees experienced any policy success(es) that impact families, 67% of all grantees report a policy success. The Midwest region has the highest percentage of grantees that report a success and Washington has the lowest. The table below summarizes the responses with the regions listed in order of the percentage that report success. Grantees were asked to list the policy success(es) experienced by their organization in the past three years. Responses fell into the following categories, listed in the order of the percentage of grantees that reported a success in that area. 1. Education (13%) 2. Housing (12%) 3. Criminal Justice/Prison Reform (10%) Health Care (10%) 4. Early Childhood Resources (8%) Workersâ€™ Rights (8%) 5. Environment (7%) Sustainable Development (7%) 6. Living Wage (6%) 7. Immigrants (5%) 8. Federal Funding (3%) Predatory Lending (3%) 9. Tax Fairness (1%) Public Benefits (1%) Transportation (1%) Nonprofit Regulations (1%) The number of policy successes by region is as follows: Region
# of Policy Successes
NETWORKS AND PARTNERSHIPS Communications with Colleagues The highest percentage of grantees in all regions use meetings as the most common strategy. Variations between the regions across strategies are generally limited, as grantees tend to cluster in similar ranges for each strategy. A notable variation is in listservs, which are used at the high end by 71% of National grantees and at the low end by 35% of Deep South grantees, with Southwest at 45%, California at 43%, Washington at 42%, and the Midwest at 39%. Another notable variation is in research/white papers, which are used at the high end by 46% of Deep South grantees and at the low end by 20% of Southwest grantees, with National at 36%, California at 33%, Midwest at 28%, and Washington at 21%. Level of Networks Grantees were asked about the level of relationships they have with other organizations. Marguerite Casey Foundation provided the following definitions of three levels, and asked grantees to provide the number of grantees with which they work at each level. Key Partner (K): A key partner strategizes with your organization to develop priorities and actions, and is a committed and active participant in your work. Key partners test your tools and give feedback, collaborate on creating new research, assist with program design, share analysis, resources and credit, and participate in joint decision making. Collaborator (C): A collaborator coordinates actions and resources to advance your mutual interests. A collaborator may participate in your organization's activities and planning, and may occasionally share resources. Supporter (S): A supporter shares your organization's interests and provides support when asked, though participation in your organization's efforts is limited. The Deep South grantees report the highest number of partners at each level, followed by (in this order), Southwest, California, National, Midwest and Washington grantees, but these numbers should be viewed in the context of how many grantees completed the survey (e.g., only 15 National grantees completed the survey compared with 26 Deep South grantees). Percentages suggest that California, Deep South, Midwest, National, and Southwest grantees are the most networked, with the Deep South at the highest levels. The percentages from each region within each category at the 21+ partner level are listed below in the order of highest number of partners to lowest: Deep South: 26% of grantees have 21+ key partners, 35% have 21+ collaborators, and 73% have 21+ supporters National: 29% have 21+ key partners, 29% have 21+ collaborators, and 64% have 21+ supporters 14
Midwest: 17% have 21+ key partners, 39% have 21+ collaborators, and 56% have 21+ supporters Southwest: 15% have 21+ key partners, 40% have 21+ collaborators, and 55% have 21+ supporters California: 11% of grantees have 21+ key partners, 16% have 21+ collaborators, and 63% have 21+ supporters Washington: 6% have 21+ key partners, 22% have 21+ collaborators, and 28% have 21+ supporters Partners Across Sectors Grantees were asked about the number of partners their organizations work with in the nonprofit, education, government, private, and faith-based sectors. One hundred percent of grantees work with nonprofits, 98% work with education organizations, 96% work with government organizations, 95% work with private organizations, and 93% work with faith-based organizations. Among the findings: 79% of grantees work with 11 or more nonprofit organizations 49% of grantees work with 11 or more education organizations 27% of grantees work with 11 or more government organizations 39% of grantees work with 11 or more private organizations 30% of grantees work with 11 or more faith-based organizations The regional trends generally follow the aggregate trends, with the grantees most commonly working with nonprofit and education organizations, and less commonly with government, private and faith-based organizations, with the exception of the Deep South, which works with the largest percentage of faith-based organizations. Significant Impacts on Families When asked about the most significant impact the grantee organization has had on individual families, grantees offered a range of answers that converged around several themes, as summarized below (and presented in the order of highest percentage to lowest): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Civic Engagement and Empowerment of Families (26%) Policy Changes (23%) Access to Information and Services (15%) Family Self-sufficiency (11%) Family Support (10%) Shifting Public Discourse (7%) Building the Capacity of Community Organizations (5%) Creating Opportunities for Communities of Color (3%)
The perception among grantees of their most significant impacts varied across the regions: California and Southwest grantees most commonly cite civic engagement and empowerment of families Deep South and Midwest grantees most commonly cite policy changes Washington grantees most commonly cite shifting public discourse National grantees most commonly cite building the capacity of community organizations 15
Appendix: Examples of Grantee Policy Successes Following is a sampling of the policy successes (presented by region) of organizations that are also recipients of Marguerite Casey Foundation general support grants. This sampling provides examples of the work of grantees and their use of general support resources. Marguerite Casey Foundation has made only general support grants to these organizations., and no portion of these grants has been earmarked, within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 53.4945-2(a)(5)(i), to be used in an attempt to influence legislation. Marguerite Casey Foundation does not pay or incur any amount to attempt to influence legislation.1. It is also important to note that most policy change is the result of the work of numerous coalition partners and a complex array of forces. Therefore, the organizations listed here are those that indicated that the policies in question were an important part of their agenda and efforts but it is not to imply that the group was solely responsible for the policy changes listed.
California: Applied Research Center: Parent notification bill to require all high schools to notify parents about requirements for getting into college and what classes their schools offer and do not offer. California Child Care Resource and Referral Network/Parent Voices: Updated income eligibility guidelines for subsidized child care; saved child care for low-income working families previously receiving public assistance; passed paid sick days legislation in San Francisco. Center on Policy Initiatives: Passed living wage law; community benefits agreement. East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy: Passage of the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance; passage of the Richmond Local Employment Ordinance; passage of the Emeryville Hotel Housekeepers Living Wage Ordinance; approval of a plan by the Port of Oakland to reduce diesel emissions by 85 percent over 12 years. Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy: Hotel worker living wage ordinance; various community benefits agreements; adoption of a ports truck fee for access to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to help clean up the environment; the majority of the Los Angeles City Council voted to require Providence Hospital to do environmental impact report for major expansion of Hospital in the very poor North East Valley. Low-income Families’ Empowerment through Education (LIFETIME): Parents on welfare can attend college for the full lifetime limit on aid in California (60 months); welfare cost of living adjustments were made. People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER): Established San Francisco’s responsibility to inspect the conditions of public housing complexes throughout the City; increased community oversight of redevelopment activities.
Treas. Reg. § 53.4945-2(a)(6) provides that a general support grant by a private foundation to a public charity (within the meaning of Code section 509(a)(1), (2) or (3)), does not constitute an amount paid or incurred to carry on propaganda, or otherwise influence legislation, as described in Code section 4945(d)(1), to the extent that the grant is not earmarked to be used for such purpose. 16
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE): Residential hotel moratorium; Grand Avenue community benefits agreement. Ella Baker Center: Persuaded the City of Oakland to invest $250,000 in the Oakland Green Jobs Corps to provide young adults with green pathways out of poverty and into good careers. Working Partnerships USA: Rental car agency living wage; lowering of rates on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; prevented county health care cuts.
Deep South: Action Communication and Education Reform: Full funding for public education in 2007. Arise Citizensâ€™ Policy Project: Secured 505 more beds in the community for long-term health care Coalition of Immokalee Workers: Won agreements with six major fast food companies to improve wages and working conditions for farmworkers in their supply chain. Direct Action and Research Training Center: Secured $30 million a year for five primary health clinics that opened for 15,000 low-income families; helped created a $30 million Housing Trust Fund, which will provide 3,000 units for low- to moderate-income families; $17 million in Tax Increment Financing was allocated to renovate 880 public housing sites over five years. Fair Housing Agency of Alabama: Change in tenant/landlord law that makes laws more equitable for tenants. Farmworker Association of Florida: Transportation safety act for farmworkers. Federation of Child Care Centers of Alabama: New regulations by the Mobile County Health Department for all child care programs; increases in fees paid to child care providers serving children on the child care subsidy program; increased numbers of children served on the child care subsidy program; passage of the tax fairness plan. Greater Birmingham Ministries: Established the Birmingham Center for Affordable Housing/Birmingham Homeownership Center to support first-time homebuyers. Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana: Shut down Tallulah prison; improved juvenile indigent defense throughout the state; changed the school discipline code for the Recovery School District. Louisiana Environmental Action Network: Improved water quality to thousands of households. Miami Workers Center: Landmark agreement with Miami-Dade County to redevelop 850 units of low-income public housing. Mississippi Workersâ€™ Center for Human Rights: Improvements to school sites; actions against slumlords and landlords; commitment from Greenville City Council to adopt a living wage. North Florida Educational Development Corporation: Helped to remove barriers from the KidCare Health policy in the State of Florida.
Southern Center for Human Rights: Stopped bill that would have levied a medication fee on top of existing medical visit fees for Georgia prisoners. Southern Echo: Full funding for Mississippi Adequate Education Program; passage of Juvenile Justice Reform Acts; adoption of the first statewide Dropout Prevention Plan. VOICES for Alabama’s Children: Expansion of high-quality pre-k, child care and Head Start opportunities for low-income children; improvement of safety law for children; improvement of income tax rates for low-income families.
Midwest: Coalition of African, Asian, European, Latino Immigrants of Illinois: Worked to change education curriculum on the state level to expand the definition of genocide in the public school systems. Centers for New Horizons: Expansion of early care and education funding. Chicago Coalition for the Homeless: State allocation of $25 million to rental assistance for families; state commitment of $11 million to fund homeless prevention programs. Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers: Legislation in support of a residential treatment and transition pilot; first mother-child visitation program in Cook County Jail; First Offender Probation legislation. Community Organizing and Family Issues: Re-write of Chicago Public Schools’ discipline code and implementation of a new Student Code of Conduct. Erie Neighborhood House: Raised income eligibility for subsidized child care by $2000 (and working for more significant increase). Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights: Health care for all children, including undocumented children; naturalization program funded at $3 million per year to assist 30,000 immigrants to become citizens. Interfaith Worker Justice: Organized in support of the federal minimum wage. Kenwood Oakland Community Organization: Passage of an inclusionary zoning ordinance that set aside 10 percent of units in new developments as affordable and created funding for affordable housing development. Metropolitan Tenants Organization: Statewide lead poisoning prevention laws. Target Area Development Corporation: Living wages raised; criminal justice policy; education funding; public safety funding.
National: ACLU Women’s Rights Project: Language in the Violence Against Women Act to protect victims of domestic violence from housing discrimination. The Choice Program, UMBC: The State of Maryland allocated funding to open Choice Program offices in three new locations to provide alternatives to incarceration for youth and families. Equal Rights Advocates: Expansion of paid leave for workers. 18
Hmong National Development: Removal of material support bars from the Real ID and Patriot Acts. Independent Sector: Reshaping of federal legislation impacting the ability of the nonprofit community to do its work.
Southwest/U.S. â€“ Mexico Border: Indian Pueblo Cultural Center; United South Broadway Corporation: New Mexico Predatory Lending Act (2007). American Indian Association of Tucson (dba Tucson Indian Center): Assisted in restoring federal funds to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Title V funding for urban Native American families. Sent approximately 1,000 from local families to Congress, representatives (conservative estimate of 1000 families impacted). Congress restored Title V funding for the year. Environmental Health Coalition: Removal of South Bay Power Plant; ordinance; secured $1.5 million for community planning; won ordinance to phase-out polluters in residential areas; won state law to prohibit sale of lead contaminated candies. Mariposa Community Health Center: Changes in school discipline policies to provide youth who are about to get expelled the option of an alternative program; a transition process was established for juveniles on probation to assist them with returning to society after being incarcerated. Somos un Pueblo Unido: Minimum wage policy in Santa Fe; in-state tuition and financial aid for undocumented students. Southwest Center for Economic Integrity: Passage of day laborer rights legislation; passage of several local ordinances in Arizona to prevent expansion of payday lending industry.
Washington Home State: Refugee Womenâ€™s Alliance: Increase of $3,000,000 for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) funds; increase in funds for naturalization. Southwest Youth and Family Services: Passed a dedicated tax for mental health services. Statewide Poverty Action Network: Six bills dealing with homeowner security and predatory lending protections; TANF grant increase for housing; increased food stamp eligibility; secured health care for children and adults; passed insurance consumer protections. Tukwila Community Schools Collaboration: Added bus to what was considered a dangerous route; persuaded city housing response to slumlord practices. Washington Community Action Network Education and Research Fund: The Washington State Prescription Drug Purchasing Pool, which provides discounted drugs and generic options to Washington residents, was implemented. More than 80,000 Washington residents are enrolled and are saving millions of dollars each year.