TPC Blog
Mayor David Cicilline of Providence Opens TPC Roundtable
6/12/2009
As the Mayor of Providence and the Co-Chair of the Leadership Council to The Philanthropic Collaborative (TPC), I would like to extend a warm welcome to the cities, charities, and foundations joining us today for Innovative Ideas in Health. As you know, America’s health care system will undergo a series of sweeping changes, inevitably affecting each of our communities. Through the course of these reforms, it is important we do not lose sight of the non-profit community’s valuable contributions to advance health in our cities and communities.
Today’s workshop is an informal forum for key community leaders to learn about highly impactful health care initiatives that are driving down health care costs while at the same time improving access to quality health care in cities and communities across the U.S. All of these initiatives are "shovel-ready" and can be scaled to different size cities.
Later today, TPC will be release an economic study that builds on a previous study showing a huge rate of return on health grantmaking -- for every $1 of foundation grants made to health and wellness programs $5 of economic benefits and cost saving were returned to the cities and communities served.
But the story gets better. In the economic study to be released today, we will learn those private dollars going to health initiatives are aimed at the right people – those that are underserved. This information will prove invaluable as the debate surrounding health care reform continues, and foundations and charities alike can better explain how much “bang for their buck” cities and communities receive from all that they do.
Ultimately, the success of further research into the economic benefits of grantmaking depends on a vibrant, diverse array of interested organizations. I once again welcome your interest and participation today, and thank Grantmakers In Health for co-sponsoring today’s workshop.
Sincerely,
Mayor David N. Cicilline
Co-Chair of the Leadership Council to TPC
Targeting Grant Dollars by Population Group: The Debate Continues
6/29/2009
(From PHILANTOPIC: A blog of opinion and commentary from
Philanthropy News Digest)
By Larry McGill, the
Foundation Center’s senior vice president for research.
Ah, dueling research studies! Each making use of data from the same source -- the
Foundation Center -- and each drawing different, yet not incompatible,
conclusions. How can that be?
Published earlier this year, the NCRP report Criteria for
Philanthropy at its Best analyzed available grants data coded by the Foundation
Center as having benefited "marginalized populations" (as defined by
NCRP using existing Foundation Center population group categories). The
report noted carefully that it only counted grants explicitly targeted to serve
such populations.
More recently, the Philanthropic
Collaborative's Broad Benefits: Health-Related Giving by Private and Community
Foundations analyzed both available grants data coded by the Foundation
Center as well as a random sample of two hundred additional grants without
population group coding. This allowed Phill Swagel, the report's author, to
estimate the total benefit to marginalized populations of foundation giving in
the field of health, whether or not these populations were explicitly targeted
by grantmakers.
Both analyses make important points. If foundations aren't
explicit about the intended beneficiaries of their grantmaking, then we can't
know for sure that specific population groups have in fact been strategically
targeted. NCRP argues that such strategic targeting is important.
On the other hand, even if foundations don't strategically
target specific population groups, such groups may still benefit from their
grantmaking. This is what TPC demonstrated in its report.
The third possibility, of course, is that foundations may
not be telling us as much as they could about the population groups that
benefit from their grantmaking. And that is surely true, as well.
And, by the way, let's remember that not all grantmaking
should or even can be targeted to benefit specific population groups. NCRP's
report recommends that grantmakers try to allocate at least 50 percent of their
grantmaking to benefit marginalized populations, not all of it. That's an
implicit acknowledgement that grantmaking cannot be reduced to simplistic
equations such as “Grantmaking to Specific Population Groups = Good;
“Grantmaking Not to Specific Population Groups = Bad.”
Fortunately, neither NCRP nor the Philanthropic
Collaborative reduce the issue to such absurdities. My hat is off to both
NCRP's Aaron Dorfman and Phill Swagel for the ways they have so effectively
marshaled available data in the service of their respective causes. This is
exactly the kind of conversation the Center's data on beneficiary populations
should be generating.