21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction

Posted on May 4, 2017 by Keiva Hummel

The 28-page paper, 21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction, written by Jill Blair and Malka Kopell was commissioned by The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions and published in spring 2015. The paper offers 3 keystones for building an effective and more equitable civic infrastructure: engaging all sectors; enlisting all voices; and creating vertical and horizontal thoroughfares for the exchange of information and practice. Below is an excerpt of the paper, which can be found in full on The Aspen Institute’s FCS’s site here.

From the introduction…

Our existing civic infrastructure was not designed with intention; it evolved over time in an ad hoc fashion and was built, in part, as a result of investments made over time, largely by philanthropy, but also by private and public sector entities. While philanthropy has helped to populate our current civic infrastructure with nonprofit organizations, the public sector has introduced civic infrastructure policies – from public hearings to citizen budget commissions, and the private sector has contributed to civic infrastructure as well by sponsoring everything from volunteer engagement programs to corporate social responsibility efforts.

The investments and contributions have created a set of institutions, organizations, policies and practices upon which society has come to rely to facilitate public engagement in what Alexis de Tocqueville described as “associational life.” This is civic infrastructure, and it is made up of civic platforms of interplay and participation that enable us to connect with one another and to discover, express, and act on our collective community and civic interests.

We are suggesting here that given the myriad ways in which the world has changed and the persistence of the problems our civic infrastructure is intended to address, there is a need not only to revisit that infrastructure but to consciously create an infrastructure capable of meeting the challenges of our times. Our existing civic infrastructure is, in some cases, failing to take advantage of opportunities, in terms of today’s technology, communications and access to information. In other cases, our current system is failing to meet the challenges it was intended to overcome. Some remnants of 20th century civic infrastructure are ineffective and others may be damaging or undermining or compromising our potential for positive social impact.

Purpose
As leading investors in public problem solving across all content and disciplines, we see philanthropy as the primary, but not the sole, audience for this paper. As problem-solving investors, philanthropy historically has been a source of support for many of the institutions and organizations that comprise our civic infrastructure. With that said, the concepts presented here are relevant to all individuals and organizations committed to building a better world — one in which fairness, justice, economic and educational opportunity prevail and where all people are engaged as stakeholders in civic and community life. We offer this concept of intentional civic infrastructure design to provoke broad interest and to spark participation in its further development and realization.

Approach
We set out to explore the nature of and to begin to frame the principles of an intentionally designed civic infrastructure. We conducted conversations with 18 individuals1 and facilitated a number of small group discussions representing a range of philanthropic, nonprofit and private sector organizations. Many of those interviewed are quoted anonymously throughout this paper. We posed questions about designing a 21st century civic infrastructure in small groups gathered to discuss a range of issues, from democratic practice to place-based or neighborhood-based philanthropy. From these discussions and building on our original intention, we have gleaned what we believe are the keystone elements of a 21st century civic infrastructure wherein organizations and relationships are redefined according to what is both needed and possible given the times in which we live. We offer these keystones in a nascent stage, hoping to provoke deeper exploration and exposition. We are convinced that this moment calls for a close look at what is possible, and a closer look at steps we can take to get there.

Goals
It is time to conceive and construct, imagine and then create, a new civic infrastructure that enables full engagement in community and civic life. We must build it to be more robust and to achieve greater impact on the most vexing and troubling issues confronting our communities and the nation at large.

We intend this paper to be the basis for a series of organized conversations during which the keystones will be refined and made practical by examples and by trial and effort. We hope our colleagues in philanthropy and beyond will consider how to apply the keystones to their own portfolios and their ways of doing business in order to consciously cultivate better conditions for 21st century problem solving. As we apply these principles and our new expectations to practice, the nature of 21st century civic infrastructure should become clearer. We will build it as we go; we will recognize it as it manifests along the way. We know this approach may require reimagining, recreating and dismantling organizations and strategies to which we have become accustomed (and perhaps even committed), but that is the nature of building.

This is an excerpt of the paper, which you can find in full here.

About the Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions
The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solution’s mission is to support community collaboration – including collective impact – that enables communities to effectively address their most pressing challenges. The Forum works to accomplish this mission by pursuing four complementary strategies including: 1) building awareness by documenting and lifting up impactful strategies and stories of success; 2) mobilizing stakeholders through knowledge and network development; 3) removing barriers by advocating for effective policy; and 4) catalyzing investment by encouraging funder partnerships.

Follow on Twitter: @AspenFCS

Resource Link: http://aspencommunitysolutions.org/21st-century-civic-infastucture-under-construction/

The Civic Engagement Primer (PACE)

Posted on May 2, 2017 by Keiva Hummel

The resource, The Civic Engagement Primer, from Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) was released April 2017. It was designed to help philanthropies explore fostering civic engagement interests and increase their understanding of the civic engagement field. You can view the primer’s write up from PACE below and check out the primer on PACE’s site here.

From the site…

A new conversation about civic engagement is emerging. At PACE–a network of funders and foundations committed to civic engagement and democracy–we’ve seen the swell in interest and urgency around this work firsthand. Philanthropies are continuing to understand the civic engagement field and the role they can play in its future. We’re getting a lot of questions–things like:

What is civic engagement? How is it defined and what does it look?
How might civic engagement relate to my work?
How do I get started? Who might I learn from about how to do this work?

We don’t have all the answers, but we do have this:

This Civic Engagement Primer–also known as the #PACEprimer–is a resource designed to explore these questions and help philanthropies assess their interest and understanding in civic engagement, and ultimately help them along their journey toward integrating it into their work. This tool is intended for:

Philanthropies thinking about civic engagement for the first time
Philanthropies that are not new to civic engagement, but have yet to invest in it
Philanthropies that are already investing in civic engagement, but seek common language and shared tools

It should take users 20-30 minutes to work through the Civic Engagement Primer. At the end, we hope philanthropies will:

Have a foundational understanding of civic engagement philanthropy
Know if pursuing civic engagement philanthropy might be right for them
Have resources at their fingertips to share with colleagues and explore further

Click here to view PACE’s Civic Engagement Primer. Continue reading →

The Next Generation of Our Work

Posted on September 12, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 6-page article, The Next Generation of Our Work (2014), by NCDD’s own Co-Founder, Sandy Heierbacher, was published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 10: Iss. 1. In the article, Heierbacher shares her unique view of the rapidly growing dialogue and deliberation field and lifts up the shifts in the field that shape the next generation of D&D work. Changes are happening in regard to:

– collaboration with government
– openness to online tools for engagement
– consistently rapid growth
– increased energy devoted to collaborative efforts
– re-focus on the power of local
– funders are coming around
– attention to infrastructure

Read the article in full below ind the PDF available for download on the Journal of Public Deliberation site here.

From the article…

How does one comment on the state of a field that seems to be ever growing yet constantly in flux? As the director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), I have a bird’s eye view of this burgeoning, vibrant field. Yet I realize I see only a fraction of the great work that is being done to engage people in the decisions and issues that effect their lives.

Here are a few of the trends I have been noticing from my vantage point.

Collaboration with government. Many engagement practitioners are accustomed to working outside of government out of necessity, pushing on the edges of power but rarely getting through. This has been gradually changing with innovations like the Citizens Initiative Review and Participatory Budgeting being embraced by local and state governments. Additionally, government networks like the National Council on State Legislators and the International City/County Management Association are beginning to recognize deliberative public engagement as vital to effective governance.

Openness to online tools for engagement. Many group process experts are still skeptical that quality dialogue and deliberation can happen online. Yet there has been a growing interest among NCDD members to understand how they might utilize technology to engage new audiences and to support their face-to-face efforts. The popularity of our Tech Tuesday events and the quick acclimation our members have shown to our own online programs using tools like Codigital, Maestroconference and Hackpad are a testament to this shift.

Although skepticism is still par for the course among dialogue and deliberation practitioners who understand the power of in-person engagement, we are learning how to selectively invest our time and energy in online technology so we are not left in the dust as the world rapidly becomes more connected and digitized. Some examples of successful online engagement include recent experiments like Creating Community Solutions’ Text-Talk-Act project (www.creatingcommunitysolutions.org/texttalkact), which utilized text messaging technology to guide groups of young people through in-person dialogues, and our successful use of Codigital to get the NCDD community to crowdsource, hone and prioritize ideas for our upcoming conference. These experiences show how the deliberative democracy field is learning to appreciate the continuum Ethan Zuckerman of MIT Media Lab refers to as “thin engagement” (for texting, voting, clicking, sharing) and “thick engagement” (for the work our field is all about).

Consistently rapid growth. If NCDD’s membership is any indication, the deliberative democracy field is growing rapidly. After launching in 2002 with 50 organizational members, we now have more than 2,050 members and 33,500 subscribers. Lately, it seems like someone new finds and joins NCDD every single day, and we constantly learn of new organizations, networks and innovators we would love to bring into the network.

Increased energy devoted to collaborative efforts. Many in the dialogue and deliberation community recognize that their hopes for this work cannot be realized unless we combine efforts. An important recent example of cross-organization collaboration in the deliberative democracy field is Creating Community Solutions, an alliance of six organizations—AmericaSpeaks, the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, Everyday Democracy, the National Issues Forums Institute, the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, and the University of Arizona’s National Institute for Civil Discourse— which organized hundreds of dialogues across the country as part of Obama’s National Dialogue on Mental Health.

Also, two notable collaborative events are being planned to coincide with the National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation in October. First, the Mediators Foundation will lead a meeting-of-the-minds of top leaders and influencers in transpartisan dialogue work. Second, the CommunityMatters Partnership will convene a summit on civic infrastructure bringing together leaders in various sectors of public work. Both events will encourage collaboration and relationship building among people doing parallel, but often disconnected, work.

Other examples of successful collaboration include last year’s effort by a group of NCDD members to organize a public-at-all-levels infrastructure for national dialogue on a shoestring budget. Additionally, the Kettering Foundation has increased its attention to the opportunities for deliberative democracy organizations to collaborate, and as a field we are recognizing and dealing with the various barriers and snags we face while attempting to work together. These efforts are just a taste of the collaboration that is happening across this field.

A re-focus on the power of local. Though President Obama’s attention to open government caused a temporary spike in our field’s hopefulness that public engagement would be supported from the national stage, I’ve seen a strong swing back to a focus on the local level. Many new ultra-local efforts have formed and thrived in the past few years. These efforts tend to be self-supported, innovative, timely, and practical. One of my favorite examples comes from an NCDD member in Denver, local playwright and actor Evan Weissman, who founded an effort called “Warm Cookies of the Revolution.” Warm Cookies has created a “Civic Health Club” in Denver that runs creative civic events on everything from water treatment to pro sports—and serves milk and cookies at every event for the hungry activists and curious citizens who attend.

Even national efforts like Transition Towns and Resilience Circles, which help prepare people for environmental and economic fall-out, prioritize the establishment of local level groups. And we were reminded of the power of local relationships while running Creating Community Solutions for Obama’s national dialogue on mental health, when support, publicity and creativity came through in abundance at the local level while we struggled for attention and funds at the national level.

Funders are coming around. Though the lack of funding is a much discussed challenge facing practitioners of work focused on “process,” more and more funders seem to be focusing on convening, facilitation, and stakeholder collaboration. The Kellogg Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation both produced gorgeous guidebooks on convening last year. Community foundations across the U.S. and foundations that work intensively in select communities, like the Orton Family Foundation, are embracing their role as catalysts for community-wide dialogue and collaboration. And many foundations are devoting significant resources to “Collective Impact” efforts, which bring together issue-focused groups that typically compete with each other for funding and public attention, and facilitate and support them in setting, measuring and achieving joint goals.

Attention to infrastructure. Leaders in the deliberative democracy field are increasingly focused on infrastructure. NCDD dedicated its last national conference to examining the concept of “civic infrastructure” – the underlying structure and supports people need so they can come together to address their challenges effectively. There are also many other examples of dialogue and deliberation organizations raising questions about infrastructure. For example, the Community Matters Partnership (www.communitymatters.org/who-we-are), an alliance of seven national organizations involved in community building, place making and grant making, have turned their attention to understanding and proliferating the concept. New Hampshire Listens is working to build a statewide infrastructure to support public deliberation on complex issues affecting New Hampshire residents, and UIC’s Institute for Policy & Civic Engagement studied Chicago’s participation and activist infrastructure in order to build a robust dialogue and deliberation network in the city.

The Creating Community Solutions’ partnership has been looking at what kind of infrastructure is needed to support future multi-method nationwide deliberation efforts. Finally, NCDD is working with the Kettering Foundation to gain a better understanding of the capacity and infrastructure that already exists throughout our field, in order to uncover how this capacity can best be utilized.

What’s next for the field? Much of NCDD’s time is devoted to keeping our network strong and active, and providing valuable content and programming for our members. This is a time of extraordinary momentum and productivity in our field, and we could easily fill our staff time simply by highlighting our members’ programs on our blog and social media, sharing their resources in our online resource center, and providing them with more and more ways to connect with each other about their successes and challenges.

Yet the trends I outlined above point to a strong yearning in our field to break out of our current constraints, to find ways to collaborate more effectively with each other, to combine forces with those outside our field, and to scale up our efforts. At the 2014 NCDD conference, we will be exploring all these trends as we rally around the theme “Democracy for the Next Generation.” What do we want the next generation of our work to look like, and how can we work together to get there? Now more than ever, we have both the opportunity and, increasingly, the imperative to bring this work to a much larger stage in order to build a stronger democracy that is able to address society’s most pressing challenges.

Download the article from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

About the Journal of Public Deliberation
Spearheaded by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium in collaboration with the International Association of Public Participation, the principal objective of Journal of Public Deliberation (JPD) is to synthesize the research, opinion, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in the emerging multi-disciplinary field and political movement called by some “deliberative democracy.” By doing this, we hope to help improve future research endeavors in this field and aid in the transformation of modern representative democracy into a more citizen friendly form.

Follow the Deliberative Democracy Consortium on Twitter: @delibdem

Follow the International Association of Public Participation [US] on Twitter: @IAP2USA

Resource Link: www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss1/art23

Beyond Deliberation: A Strategy for Civic Renewal

Posted on July 1, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 6-page article, Beyond Deliberation: A Strategy for Civic Renewal (2014), by Peter Levine was published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 10: Iss. 1. Many well-organized deliberative spaces exist in the US and also, is still small activity compared to the energy used to purposely manipulate public opinion. Levine talks about how civic society has changed from organizing people en masse via churches, unions, and political parties; to a new civic society, where fewer people are organized in these traditional groups and even fewer funders are willing to put money into the engagement needed. There needs to be an active effort to expand the opportunities for discussion and deliberation within groups and organizations that are not-neutral but come together to drive change.

Find the PDF available for download from the Journal of Public Deliberation site here.

From the article…

I would not claim that our traditional civic organizations were maximally deliberative, in that they tried to promote ideologically diverse conversations that were civil and inclusive. They had agendas and they were in conflict with various opponents. My own political theory would assign some value to deliberative values—but only some. I think mobilization, contention, and negotiation are also essential elements of a democracy. Further, an important byproduct of participation in groups like churches, parties, and unions was recruitment into the broader public sphere in which individuals of diverse backgrounds and opinions exchanged ideas.

The old civil society recruited people by offering them personal (non-civic) benefits and then gave them motivations and support to talk about political issues. Its leaders were dependent on grassroots members for dues and votes, and hence accountable to the members.

In contrast, the new civil society is all nonprofit and voluntary. It asks people to participate for explicitly civic reasons. Very few do. And it depends on the grace of powerful institutions, funders and agencies.

Deliberative democracy is the theory that citizens can and should come together to talk and form reasonable public opinions. I think this theory identifies some genuine values, but there are other values to consider as well. Further, deliberative democracy presumes the unrealistic psychological premise that people will choose to deliberate. And it makes the naïve political assumption that institutions will choose to support public deliberations. These assumptions are most egregious when deliberation (talking and listening) is divorced from membership and relationships, from work and common action. A more plausible strategy involves connecting moments of deliberation to ongoing struggles, which is certainly the goal of Study Circles and similar practices that straddle the border between deliberation and community organizing.

I would look well beyond even those examples. If we want opportunities for discussion and reflection about public issues, then we will also find deliberative impulses in efforts to preserve and enhance common resources (such as wetlands and forests); in volunteer service groups that decide where and how to work; in civics classes, from kindergarten through graduate school; in partisan, ideological, and faith-based movements that have some interest in discussion; in grassroots public media efforts; and in local partnerships built around community development corporations, hospitals, and colleges. Like unions, churches, and parties, these are not primarily vehicles for deliberation. Only a small proportion see themselves as politically neutral; many are adversarial. Few see themselves as primarily involved in talking and listening. Not many share the widespread preference in deliberation for a “positive atmosphere” and “good emotional interaction” (Mansbridge et al 2006). Instead, many are angry.

But they have a common interest in confronting the forces and decisions–often intentional–that have sidelined active citizens in countries like the US. They have a common reason to challenge laws and policies, funding streams, educational priorities, and media coverage that ignore or marginalize citizens. They are all threatened by the rising signs of oligarchy in the United States. Collectively, they have considerable resources with which to fight back, both cash and people. It is time for us to begin to stir and organize–not for deliberation, but for democracy. Download the case study from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

Download the full article from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

Follow the Deliberative Democracy Consortium on Twitter: @delibdem

Follow the International Association of Public Participation [US] on Twitter: @IAP2USA

Resource Link: www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss1/art19/

Beyond Business as Usual: Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 68-page report, Beyond Business as Usual: Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance, was published 2013. The report was in partnership with Institute for Local Government and the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University. Below is an excerpt from the report and you can read the original report (or download the PDF version) from ILG’s site here.

From ILG…

What opportunities do Californians have to engage with public issues and influence decisions that affect their lives? What stands in the way of productive dialogues between local officials and the residents they serve? What are the possible ways to strengthen relations between local government and the publics they serve?

The perspectives of civic leaders and their organizations

To provide some answers to these questions, we conducted a research study that sought the opinions of more than 900 local officials and 500 leaders of civic and community-based organizations in California. We asked these local officials and civic leaders about their efforts to engage the public in decision making, their experiences with traditional public hearings at council and commission meetings and their interests and attitudes toward newer forms of public engagement—especially methods that seek to give broad cross sections of the public the opportunity to deliberate over local issues and weigh the trade-offs of policy decisions that affect their lives.

This report—the second of two summarizing this research—presents what we learned from surveying and interviewing leaders from civic and community-based organizations across California.

This report is divided into two parts. We first present the findings from our statewide survey of 462 leaders of civic and community-based organizations. These findings complement those from our research on California’s local officials’ attitudes, experiences and concerns regarding the state of public participation in local government decision making, experiences and concerns of local city and county officials regarding the state of public participation in local government decision making. The second part of this report zeros in on the views of leaders from 20 community-based organizations that work predominantly with traditionally disenfranchised communities, including low-income, ethnic minority and immigrant populations. Finally, we discuss a number of important practical recommendations that emerge from this research and its companion study on local officials.

Executive Summary

What opportunities do Californians have to engage with public issues and influence decisions that affect their lives?

What are ways to strengthen relations between communities and their local governments?

We asked leaders of California’s civic and community-based organizations about their views on the state of public participation in local governance. The following report explores what these civic leaders say is working, what’s not, and how public engagement can be improved. Traditional models for including the public in local decision making, these leaders say, fail to meet the needs of both residents and local officials. Most see significant value and potential in more inclusive and deliberative forms of engagement, and many agree local officials are making increasing efforts to include residents more meaningfully. Overall, this research suggests civic and community-based organizations are looking for newer and more effective ways to engage the public and may be ready for stronger collaborations with local government.

The report also includes concrete recommendations for local officials and their institutions, civic leaders and their organizations, and foundations and other funders. The recommendations can help improve public engagement in local governance throughout California and, we hope, beyond.

Read the full report on ILG’s site here.

About the Institute for Local Government
The Institute for Local Government is the nonprofit research education affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. Its mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. The Institute’s goal is to be the leading provider of information that enables local officials and their communities to make good decisions. Founded in 1955, the Institute has been serving local officials’ information needs for 55-plus years. Some of the highlights of that history are detailed in the story below. While respecting and honoring its past, the Institute is also intently focused on the present and future. In these difficult economic times, the need for the Institute’s materials for local officials is even greater.

Follow on Twitter: @InstLocGov.

About the Davenport Institute
Since our founding as a multi-partisan and non-profit organization in 2005, The Davenport Institute (formerly Common Sense California) has worked to engage the citizens of this state in the policy decisions that affect our everyday lives. It is our firm belief that, in today’s world of easy access to information, and easy connectivity to others, California’s municipal and education leaders are seeking ways to involve the residents of their communities in the important issues they confront. Done legitimately, this new kind of leadership produces better, more creative policy solutions and better, more engaged citizens committed to the hard work of self-governance.

Follow on Twitter: @DavenportInst

Resource Link: www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/beyondbusinessasusual_publicagenda_2013.pdf

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

Posted on February 12, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The four-page article, From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond, by John Dedrick was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Dedrick reviews the chronology of civil philanthropy, broken down throughout five distinct time periods between 1989 through present day. He discusses how major events during these time periods shaped how organized philanthropy responded and in-turn shaped the theory and practice of citizen-centered politics. Below is an excerpt from the article. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

In 2003, Kettering and the Pew Partnership agreed to convene a series of dialogues that would include both veterans of the civil investing seminars and members of the communities that had worked with the partnership.

These conversations underscored themes from the work of Kettering and the Pew Partnership with communities and helped to clarify and consolidate what had been learned about community resiliency from the civil investing work. Importantly, the dialogues with the Pew Partnership illustrated that strong democratic practice is a central and explicit theme in community problem solving. While the conversations did not transform practices of the philanthropic sector at the time, new approaches to grantmaking that focus on building community as well as rebuilding communities, particularly among public sector and local funders, have emerged. Scott London’s Investing in Public Life provides an insightful analysis of dialogues.

After Hurricane Katrina and the Great Recession (2005-2015)
In late summer 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast. And once again, many in philanthropy asked: “What are our priorities?” Three years later, in 2008, the bottom fell out of the US economy. In the period between these two events, resilience and community capacity became increasingly central themes for grantmakers. The Great Recession has had another effect as well, which was to resurface a set of questions about what philanthropy should be accountable for.

Kettering’s response to these developments has been multi-pronged. On questions of philanthropy’s role in community capacity, KF program officers Debi Witte and Derek Barker began convening meetings with community-based foundations, which led to a series of research collaborations with CFLeads, Philanthropy Northwest, and Grassroots Grantmakers. An occasional paper by Humboldt Area Foundation executive director Peter Pennekamp, Philanthropy and the Regeneration of Community Democracy, was one product from these exchanges. Kettering also worked with Public Agenda on research into accountability, reported in Don’t Count Us Out. Work with Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) resulted in Philanthropy and the Limits of Accountability as well as an article by PACE executive director Chris Gates and KF program officer Brad Rourke in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. And continuing the longstanding practice of working with foundation associations, KF program officer Carolyn Farrow-Garland joined the board of Grassroots Grantmakers, while I was invited to join the PACE board.

Finally, former Kettering board member Daniel Kemmis, who was then serving on the board of Philanthropy Northwest, began organizing exchanges on a range of topics from philanthropy’s role in strengthening community-focused nonprofits to enduring questions about the role of philanthropy in American democracy and its accountability to the public. One product of this work is Kemmis’ working paper, Philanthropy and the Renewal of Democracy: Is It Time to Step Up Our Game?

Summary Findings
What have we learned from this work? Five top-line findings head the list:

-Civil investing is actually investing. It’s philanthropic work that’s aimed at building and strengthening democracy.
-Building a nonprofit infrastructure is not the same as creating civic capacity. These may be related, but they are not the same.
-Investing in the capacities of community to do public work is labor and time intensive. It’s deeply relational and requires a long-term commitment.
-Communications and language are critical, and we don’t have a common language or effective communication strategy for this work.
-Accountability matters, but it’s about much more than metrics.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Dedrick_2015.pdf

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

Posted on February 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

From the article…

Summary Findings
What have we learned from this work? Five top-line findings head the list:

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Dedrick_2015.pdf

NoVo Foundation

Posted on August 18, 2013 by Courtney Breese

NoVo Foundation is dedicated to catalyzing a transformation in global society, moving from a culture of domination to one of equality and partnership. It supports the development of capacities in people—individually and collectively—to help create a caring and balanced world. NoVo envisions a world that operates on the principles of mutual respect, collaboration, and civic participation, thereby reversing the old paradigm predicated on hierarchy, violence, and the subordination of girls and women.

The foundation places a high priority on a compassionate view of the world and on the highest definition of philanthropy — in the roots of the words anthro and philo — “for the love of human beings.” NoVo sees itself as a learning organization and they believe they can be most impactful by being aware of the interconnectedness of all things.

They structure grantmaking around initiatives, rather than by program areas. These initiatives are varied in form, but all reflect NoVo’s commitment to building authentic partnerships with grantees and other funders, and to taking calculated risks.

NoVo initiatives include:

Empowering adolescent girls
Ending violence against girls and women
Advancing social and emotional learning
Promoting local living economies

NoVo was created in 2006 after Warren Buffett pledged to donate 350,000 shares of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock to the foundation.

About Jennifer & Peter Buffett
Jennifer and Peter Buffett are the Co-Chairs of NoVo Foundation; Jennifer also serves as President. Peter Buffett is the youngest son of investor Warren Buffett. Jennifer and Peter have been active philanthropists since 1997. They were named in Barron’s list of top 25 most effective philanthropists in 2009 and 2010.

Learn more about NoVo at www.novofoundation.org/about-us/.

Resource Link: www.novofoundation.org

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Category Archives: funders

21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction

The Civic Engagement Primer (PACE)

The Next Generation of Our Work

Beyond Business as Usual: Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

NoVo Foundation