Last week’s announcement that five large foundations plan to add a total of $45-million to the federal government’s Social Innovation Fund has stirred much excitement in nonprofit circles.
So did the news that a coalition of 20 other foundations had pledged to spend nearly an additional $5-million to heighten the impact of the fund and share the lessons learned among nonprofit groups.
Why such a fuss about a relatively small amount of philanthropic money? It must be that many in the nonprofit world were pleased to see a gesture that solidifies the partnership between the federal government and foundations. But the Obama administration could do much more to help the nonprofit world in these tough financial times than soliciting the nearly $50-million in matching money.
The Social Innovation Fund is now in the process of selecting 7 to 10 foundations that will award money to nonprofit groups with solid track records and can serve as models to spread good ideas. The foundations as well as the nonprofit groups they support are expected to come up with their own matching funds. Those requirements mean that the government's $50-million is supposed to be matched with a total of $150-million from private sources.
The program is at the heart of the Obama administration’s efforts to encourage nonprofit innovation and strengthen high-performance organizations. It also appears to be an attempt to attract more foundation money for nonprofit activities.
One can question, however, the seriousness with which the administration is pursuing these goals. The $50-million the federal government has provided to the Social Innovation Fund, after all, is a drop in the bucket, even though it just attracted nearly $50-million last week.
Given the matching requirements the Social Innovation Fund has already imposed on recipients of federal aid, why are these foundations offering the money now? Does this mean that the fund was not really expecting many of its grantees to come up with the required matching money?
A more serious question is whether the Social Innovation Fund will really meet the needs of the nonprofit world.
Although the White House and the Social Innovation Fund state that they want to support nonprofit groups that are “hidden gems,” ones that are entrepreneurial innovators, its leaders’ rhetoric suggests that the fund will focus primarily on fairly large, fairly safe nonprofit organizations that can generate good publicity. Administration leaders have not been talking about supporting strong neighborhood, advocacy, organizing or watchdog groups—the, types of activist organizations that can make a real difference at the local and regional levels.
Nor are small, grass-roots social, housing, and health-services groups, which are so crucial to a local community’s well-being, likely to be recipients of the fund’s bounty.
In some sense, the Social Innovation Fund is a diversion from the true, sometimes desperate needs of nonprofit organizations throughout the country, especially small organizations and groups in regions like the South and Southwest that have been grossly underfinanced by grant makers.
Foundations should be focusing on this bigger issue and realigning their priorities to meet those needs. Another $50-million of private money to support a government effort that is already limited in scope by its federal financing is neither smart nor strategic.
If the president is serious about persuading foundations to give more money to support nonprofit organizations, he should use the bully pulpit to pressure foundations to increase their grant making. Better yet, the administration could urge Congress to increase the minimum amount foundations are legally required to spend annually from 5 percent to 6 percent in grants, a measure that would add at least $10-billion a year to nonprofit coffers.
Pablo Eisenberg, a regular contributor to The Chronicle’s opinion section, is a senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. His e-mail address is pseisenberg@verizon.net.







Get more great stories about the nonprofit world delivered to your inbox every weekday. 




Comments
1. charliebernstein - June 01, 2010 at 03:33 pm
Thanks, Pablo. The federal government could have a much greater impact by simply raising the yearly foundation payout above the 5% of their assets it now requires foundations to grant to nonprofits - as you've been saying for years.
2. dauterson - June 01, 2010 at 09:33 pm
Government coercion and meddling in how foundations achieve their goals are NOT a good ideas. With all the possible solutions to challenges of our time - more efforts such as those could only make matters worse.
3. cass4kin - June 02, 2010 at 05:25 pm
As the Executive Director of a 7 year old hidden gem that was written about last month in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, I believe this article hits on a critical issue. The well-funded nonprofits that have been around long enough to be considered "safe" will get the federal funding and the newer struggling entrepreneuriel social innovators will not. This is the pattern in the county level, the state level and also with grant funders. There is a lack of risk taking in the nonprofit world except individuals who have an idea and visualize a brighter future. Cass Forkin, Twilight Wish
4. redfpresidio - June 04, 2010 at 02:46 pm
I agree Wholeheartedly with Mr. Eisenberg that the Congress and the Administration could and should act to increase resources for nonprofits which deliver vital, even life-saving services, especially during these troubled times. However, I'd argue that the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) is not an 'either/or' offering, but instead on a completely different track. In an admirable change from business as usual, the SIF promises to take a set of carefully calibrated risks in order to accelerate the spread of solutions that spring up from the community level, and are usually buried by government bureaucracies and routines, rather than fueled by public resources. REDF applied for the SIF because it appears that it will assist results-oriented efforts that have an appetite for scaling up to not just ameliorate problems, but to change the dynamic of longstanding and seemingly intractable social inequities. A goal that aligns with REDF's. Will the SIR succeed? The jury is obviously out. The awards have not been made, and the effort has not yet launched. But I'd argue that it's worthwhile, and high time for the government to find some new ways to partner with innovators on the ground. Not to substitute for the core public support that nonprofits need so badly, but to build an even stronger case for the value of that support in the future.
I was at the White House for the announcement last week, if you are interested I posted about it on my blog: http://blog.redf.org/2010/06/01/my-day-in-washington/
-Carla Javits, REDF
5. moesshoplogging - June 13, 2010 at 03:21 pm
What happened to the days when those RETIRED would volunteer in local - state - federal agencies to watch and may be re-align those that stray from the prime directive here? I would suggest to those that can make a difference need to get up and just do it...the more eyes and ears that pass it on with rules and laws and regulations that occurs in Washington DC the better off we will all be...may be some updated version of the Civilian Conservation Corps.?