Echoing Justice Communications Strategies for Community Organizing in the 21st Century New Directions: Funding Movement Communications
Echoing Justice is an action research project of the Echo Justice Communications Collaborative—a multi-year initiative to incubate, innovate, and implement movement building communications strategies that strengthen racial justice alliances and their impact. The Echoing Justice report team includes staff of the Center for Media Justice (CMJ), the Praxis Project, Center for Story Based Strategy (formerly smartMeme), the Movement Strategy Center (MSC), Community Media Workshop, and UNITY Alliance. Lead writer: Julie Quiroz, Movement Strategy Center Lead researcher: Jen Soriano, Lionswrite Consulting Report editing and production: Karlos Schmieder, Center for Media Justice Design: Micah Bazant, micahbazant.com Resources for this report were provided by the Surdna Foundation, the Akonadi Foundation and the Frances Fund.
1
As the stories and survey findings in Echoing Justice demonstrate, grassroots organizations and alliances are doing innovative and impactful communications with minimal resources. Unfortunately, the lack of field-wide tracking prevents a more thorough assessment of the state of movement communications funding. While there are reports on communications effectiveness in nonprofits1 and evaluation reports on specific communications initiatives2, there are currently no known reports on communications funding and evaluation trends among grassroots organizations. In fact, in Echoing Justice’s review of existing studies, reports on communications funding trends and evaluation focused solely on philanthropic communications.3
1. Keys to Effective Non-Profit Communications, Princeton
Survey Research Associates International, Commissioned by Cause Communications, September 2008. 2. For example, What Non-Profits Say: A Study of the Effectiveness of Communications Training, William and Flora Hewett Foundation, March 2011. 3. Foundation Communications Today: Findings from the 2011 Survey of Foundation Communications Professionals, Hamill Remaley, Commissioned by the Communications Network. Foundation Communications: The State of the Practice, Howard Breindel, The Communications Network, 2008.
What we do know is that funding for grassroots organizing is minimal4 and that funding for grassroots communications is even less. Consider one small example: during informal interviews with six funders – all of whom direct a significant percentage of their grants toward organizing – Echoing Justice report researchers found that the total amount directed toward communications for their grantees added up to only about $1.5 million.5 This amount is scant when compared with right wing investment in communications (see box below). We also know that new efforts at collaborative funding are emerging that could become models for funding grassroots organizing communications. While few of these funding projects are specifically focused on grassroots organizing, they are advocacy-focused efforts that could have useful implications for funding collaborative communications strategies and infrastructure in grassroots organizing groups. In this report we highlight a successful model of collaborative support for communications among grassroots organizations in communities of color. We also highlight two models that focus primarily on advocacy groups: one that promotes shared messaging across campaigns; and one that promotes shared resourcing and collaboration among groups funded by the same foundation. 4. Building a Social Force: The Grassroots Organizing Sector and Opportunities for the New Millenium, The UNITY Alliance (formerly the Inter-alliance Dialogue), June 2010. 5. We interviewed four national and two local funders (see appendix for interview questions). Interview results showed that communications funding comes in many shapes and sizes - packaged in capacity building grants, separated out for specific methods of communications (video, social media, training) - and that funders use a variety of metrics to measure success. The sample size was too small to draw any conclusions about trends, suggesting again the need for more comprehensive tracking and analysis.
Echoing Justice
NEW DIRECTIONS: FUNDING MOVEMENT COMMUNICATIONS
2
•
Between 1992 and 1994, twelve conservative foundations invested around 210 million in communications capacity for conservative grassroots organizations, think tanks, academics, law firms and watchdog groups.6 Moreover, little recent investment has been made in collecting or publishing data on the Right’s communications funding.
•
Between 1970 and 1997, the Scaife foundation alone had distributed more than $200 million to right wing causes.7
•
Between 1987 and 1996 ten of the leading conservative think tanks received a total of 88 million in less than 10 years from 12 conservative foundations.8
•
Between 1992 and 1994, these 12 leading conservative foundations spent 88.9 million on 145 universities for conservative curricula as well as scholarship programs and trainings for conservative academic thinkers—a dual strategy of thinkers/pundits and university policy-makers. 26.5 million of this was specifically reserved for fellowships and internships. They spent another 79 million to build and strengthen national and international policy think tanks and advocacy groups; an additional 9.3 million on networked regional and state-based think tanks; 16.3 million on conservative media outlets and media watchdog groups; 10.5 million on conservative law projects; and 5.4 million specifically on organizations working to shape philanthropic and religious leader social views and giving practices.9
•
State-based right wing policy think tanks tripled in number in the ‘90s, totaling 40 in 37 states by 2001. These think tanks were funded to tune of 21.41 million between 1999 and 2001.10
•
As a result, between 2002-2003 mainstream news citations of conservative think tanks were nearly quadruple that of progressive think tanks (47% compared to 12%).11
•
The Koch Brothers’ foundations outdo all other conservative foundations in business and personal contributions to right wing causes. Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions including millions to the Tea Party through its Americans for Prosperity Foundation.12
•
Conservative foundations fund “movements” not “projects” and “ideology” not just “policy and constituency”— the effects of which can be seen in the policy realm and especially in the ideological realm of national debate.13
6. Covington, S. (2005), ‘Moving Public Policy to the Right: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations,’ p. 92. in D. Faber & D. McCarthy (Eds.), Foundations for Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 7. Covington, S. p.92 8. Ibid., p. 95. 9. Ibid., p. 92 10. Ibid., P. 97 11. Ibid. p. 101 12. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html 13. Convington, S. p. 111.
Echoing Justice
The investment of conservative foundations in a coordinated system of communications and thought leadership far out-distances investment by progressive social justice funders.
3
Overview: When First Lady Michelle Obama
unveiled the “Let’s Move” initiative to combat the nation’s childhood obesity epidemic, health and food justice advocates surely cheered. Yet there was concern among a number of community-based groups and movement support intermediaries like the Praxis Project that there would be some drawbacks to all the attention. The spotlight on obesity—versus creating healthy environments—was set to give rise to victim blaming and the stigmatization of
communities of color. It’s no secret that communities of color are most affected by issues of health and obesity. It’s also no secret that these same communities have the least access to healthy foods and recreation opportunities. Taking Initiative: The Praxis Project set out to
respond to this reality with a national initiative to invest in local communities hardest hit by obstacles to healthy environments and living. Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson
CCHE Grantee Media Coverage Framing From 2009-2012 Environmental or policy change
CCHE or RWJF
Health
Obesity
% Articles Mentioning Both Grantee Name and Search Term(s)
Race or racism
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Figure 1 from Measuring Impact: An Analysis of Communities Creating Healthy Environments Grantee Media Coverage
Echoing Justice
A Funding Model for Integrated Policy Advocacy and Communications Strategies— Communities Creating Healthy Environments: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Praxis Project
4
Implications for Other Funders: Through stra-
Transforming Debate: The CCHE initiative
tegic, timely and collaborative communications work and technical assistance, CCHE grantees and national partners have used a combination of policy change and analysis along with communications strategies to tell the story of the systemic denial of healthy foods, recreation, and equitable land distribution in people of color, indigenous, and poor communities.
presented a unique opportunity to transform public debate on childhood obesity in communities of color from an individual problem caused by the poor decisions of negligent people to a social problem with substantiated structural causes and real policy solutions.
A content analysis14 of print news coverage over the length of the initiative showed the success of this kind of strategic collaboration with foundations, technical assistance providers, and grassroots organizations. 14.  MEASURING IMPACT: An analysis of Communities
Photo by Diane Ovalle
Creating Healthy Environments Grantee Media Coverage
Echoing Justice
Foundation, Communities Creating Healthy Environments (CCHE) provides funding, technical assistance and other forms of support to 22 grantee organizations in order to engage in local policy advocacy, community organizing and other strategies to address childhood obesity and related issues head-on.
5
Overview: As a result of the recent economic
recession and slow recovery, a group of grantmakers made it a priority to build the capacity of state policy and advocacy networks to effectively message the essential role of government and the importance of a healthy public sector. Funders Taking Coordinated Action: In 2009,
the Communications Collaborative (The Collaborative) came together to fulfill a common goal: to coordinate investment across foundations in order to strategically build communications capacity among policy and advocacy groups. The Grantmakers Income Security Taskforce (GIST) provides staff support for The Collaborative, which is a joint project of GIST, Grantmakers for Children, Youth & Families (GCYF), and Grantmakers In Health (GIH). Currently, The Collaborative is a growing network of 30 grantmakers representing national and regional foundations that participate in monthly conference calls, a private listserv, and occasional in-person meetings. Several areas of coordinated action have been identified, including establishing a virtual rapid response fund, continuing geographic tracking
of funder investments, and harnessing creative digital approaches. Activities for 2012 have focused on: engaging the philanthropic sector in deploying key messages and frames on the role of government through webinars and talking points; data collection on best practices; and launching a rapid response fund for states and regions in need of accelerated support for targeted communications around Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) policies. The EITC Fund is currently supported by two national funders and administered by GIST, the Hatcher Group and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Nearly $70,000 has been awarded to support communications and advocacy in Michigan, Washington, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Implications for Other Funders: The Collaborative could be a model for funders who want to coordinate funding to support grassroots organizing groups and alliances. It suggests an alternative to issue-based coordination, instead focusing on a specific change method (policy advocacy) to influence the debate around government as a whole.
Although The Collaborative operates informally, they have created a set of basic infrastructure for grantmaker exchange around strategic communications, as well as a rapid response fund mechanism to quickly and collaboratively disseminate targeted funds to state groups engaged in key communications battles. They’ve also developed a geographic tracking spreadsheet and analysis to show funders where investments are being made in policy, advocacy and collaboration work in specific states, and to assist organizations in more easily determining how and with whom to coordinate in their respective states or regions. Moreover, The Collaborative not only coordinates communications funding to strategically
Echoing Justice
A Funding Model for Coordinated Investment: The Grantmakers Income Security Taskforce, Grantmakers for Children Youth & Families, and Grantmakers In Health Communications Collaborative
6
resources and peer learning, and bring “what works” to scale. For more information on this model, please go to http://gistfunders.org/communicationscollaborative.php.
A Model for Funder Investment in Grantee Collaboration: The Proteus Fund’s Security and Rights Collaborative
Overview: In 2008, the Security and Rights Collaborative of the Proteus Fund started a project known as the Communications Hub. In the words of program officer Dimple Abichandani, the Hub is an “innovative model for supporting the communications work of a community of grantees.” The Hub was designed to share resources to build communications capacity, support strategic communications wins, and increase collaboration among organizations working in the field of national security and human rights. Grantee Needs, Funder Management, Communications Service Provision: Proteus
designed the Hub based on deep field research. They contracted two communications firms — ReThink Media and Spitfire Strategies — to conduct a capacity needs assessment of grantees and a media assessment of dominant messages in the field. Based on shared needs and addressing imbalances in grantee’s existing capacity, the Hub provides training, resources, relationship brokering with journalists, media monitoring, and support for shared communications campaigns. The Proteus Fund not only funds, it also manages the project. Abichandani spends about 25 percent of her time managing the hub, including making decisions about how resources get distributed, and which communications interventions get prioritized.
ReThink is contracted by Proteus to deliver the Hub services, including identifying threats and opportunities through media monitoring and creating briefs, tools, and proactive communications campaign suggestions to intervene in public debate. Three ReThink staff members devote their full-time schedules to the project. A Funder’s Strategic Plan: The Hub project
was designed with a three-year phase-in plan, in which Abichandani made it clear to her donors that results would not be seen in year one. Instead, they focused year one on trust building with grantees and in providing baseline training to meet immediate capacity needs. In year two, they moved into deeper training and
Echoing Justice
grant it accordingly, but seeks to increase collaborative funding for policy and advocacy groups overall. In other words, The Collaborative recognizes that communications is an entry point for increasing funding coordination across issues and creating a centralized hub to unite policy and advocacy groups, facilitate shared
7
Echoing Justice
relationship building with reporters, and in year three they are now working on proactive collaborative strategic communications campaigns. After 3 years they re-administered the needs assessment to evaluate progress. The results were overwhelmingly positive —with regard to building organizations’ individual communications capacity, 93 percent of groups indicated that there has been significant improvement or improvement; 88 percent developed greater rapid response capacity; and 67 and 63 percent reported improved collaboration and a more unified message and messaging strategy, respectively. According to Abichandani: “We’ve seen that the field has been able to shift the narrative on how these issues are being covered in the media-this might not have happened if we’d built up communications capacity one by one for grantees. It’s the shared spaces we created to foster alignment that has been the transformative piece.”
this. Proteus donors provided the time and space to create an experiment designed to engage grantees and respond to their identified needs. •
Desire for instant response must be met through rapid response funds to fund PR firms to work with the field on these issues. A project like the Hub is geared toward longer-term results.
•
There are strengths and weaknesses to a sole funder approach. On the upside, ReThink is not pulled in many different directions-there is only one strategic mandate from Proteus Fund. However the risk remains that it all depends on Proteus. In order to strengthen sustainability, the Hub now requires that organizations contribute minimal dues after the first 3 years.
•
The price tag is at times daunting: convenings and field research cost $563,429; the Hub spent $412,670 on messaging research; and $500,000 on annual maintenance, including consulting, media monitoring, new resources and training. However the significant investment has resulted in coordinated impacts, with 120 organizations benefitting from these resources, and between 50 and 60 groups actively using Hub resources on a daily basis.
Based on these results, the Piper Fund is now exploring a similar model for money in politics groups. Implications for Other Funders: While the Proteus Hub may not be replicable for other funders, it is an inspiring example that proves through practice the following points:
1. Communications effectiveness is measurable using standard evaluation tools and metrics, such as individual skills, rapid response, capacity, and collaborative and unified messaging. 2. Communications intermediaries seen as neutral conveners can support collaborative messaging across organizations. 3. Great impacts are seen when funders provide not just funding resources but also human resources to manage capacity building. •
It takes time and patience to see results, and Proteus Fund donors understood
Find the full report at http://centerformediajustice.org/echoingjustice