 Your new post is loading...
A think tank, or public policy institute, is a research institute that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture. Most think tanks are non-governmental organizations, but some are semi-autonomous agencies within a government, and some are associated with particular political parties, businesses, or the military.[1] Think tanks are often funded by individual donations, with many also accepting government grants.[2] Think tanks publish articles and studies, and sometimes draft legislation on particular matters of policy or society. This information is then used by governments, businesses, media organizations, social movements or other interest groups.[3][4] Think tanks range from those associated with highly academic or scholarly activities to those that are overtly ideological and pushing for particular policies, with a wide range among them in terms of the quality of their research. Later generations of think tanks have tended to be more ideologically oriented.[3] Modern think tanks began as a phenomenon in the United Kingdom in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with most of the rest being established in other English-speaking countries.[3][5] Prior to 1945, they tended to focus on the economic issues associated with industrialization and urbanization. During the Cold War, many more American and other Western think tanks were established, which often guided government Cold War policy.[3][6][4] Since 1991, more think tanks have been established in non-Western parts of the world. More than half of all think tanks that exist today were established after 1980.[5] As of 2023, there are more than 11,000 think tanks around the world.[7] History According to historian Jacob Soll, while the term "think tank" is modern, with its origin traced to the humanist academies and scholarly networks of the 16th and 17th centuries, evidence shows that, in Europe, the origins of think tanks go back to the 800s when emperors and kings began arguing with the Catholic Church about taxes. A tradition of hiring teams of independent lawyers to advise monarchs about their financial and political prerogatives against the church spans from Charlemagne all the way to the 17th century, when the kings of France were still arguing about whether they had the right to appoint bishops and receive a cut of their income. Soll cites as an early example the Académie des frères Dupuy, created in Parisaround 1620 by the brothers Pierre and Jacques Dupuy and also known after 1635 as the cabinet des frères Dupuy.[8] The Club de l'Entresol, active in Paris between 1723 and 1731, was another prominent example of an early independent think tank focusing on public policy and current affairs, especially economics and foreign affairs.[9] 19th century Several major current think tanks were founded in the 19th century. The Royal United Services Institute was founded in 1831 in London, and the Fabian Society in 1884. 20th century The oldest United States–based think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was founded in Washington, D.C., in 1910 by philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie charged trustees to use the fund to hasten the abolition of international war, the foulest blot upon our civilization.[10] The Brookings Institution was founded shortly thereafter in 1916 by Robert S. Brookings and was conceived as a bipartisan research center modeled on academic institutions and focused on addressing the questions of the federal government.[11] In the early 1920s, fascist and other far-right think tanks appeared in the Netherlands.[12] After 1945, the number of policy institutes increased, with many small new ones forming to express various issues and policy agendas. Until the 1940s, most think tanks were known only by the name of the institution. During the Second World War, think tanks were often referred to as "brain boxes".[13] Before the 1950s, the phrase "think tank" did not refer to organizations. From its first appearances in the 1890s up to the 1950s, the phrase was most commonly used in American English to colloquially refer to the braincase or especially in a pejorative context to the human brain itself when commenting on an individual's failings (in the sense that something was wrong with that person's "think tank").[14]: 25 Around 1958, the first organization to be regularly described in published writings as "the Think Tank" (note the title case and the use of the definite article) was the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.[14]: 26 However, the Center does not count itself as and is not perceived to be a think tank in the contemporary sense.[14]: 26 During the 1960s, the phrase "think tank" was attached more broadly to meetings of experts, electronic computers,[14]: 27 and independent military planning organizations.[14]: 26 The prototype and most prominent example of the third category was the RAND Corporation, which was founded in 1946 as an offshoot of Douglas Aircraft and became an independent corporation in 1948.[14]: 70 [15] In the 1970s, the phrase became more specifically defined in terms of RAND and others.[14]: 28 During the 1980s and 1990s, the phrase evolved again to arrive at its broader contemporary meaning of an independent public policy research institute.[14]: 28 For most of the 20th century, such institutes were found primarily in the United States, along with much smaller numbers in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Western Europe. Although think tanks had also existed in Japan for some time, they generally lacked independence, having close associations with government ministries or corporations. There has been a veritable proliferation of "think tanks" around the world that began during the 1980s as a result of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of transnational problems. Two-thirds of all the think tanks that exist today were established after 1970 and more than half were established since 1980.[5] The effect of globalisation on the proliferation of think tanks is most evident in regions such as Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and parts of Southeast Asia, where there was a concerted effort by other countries to assist in the creation of independent public policy research organizations. A survey performed by the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program underscores the significance of this effort and documents the fact that most of the think tanks in these regions have been established since 1992. 21st century As of 2014, there were more than 11,000 of these institutions worldwide.[16][17] Many of the more established think tanks, created during the Cold War, are focused on international affairs, security studies, and foreign policy.[5] Types Think tanks vary by ideological perspectives, sources of funding, topical emphasis and prospective consumers.[18]Funding may also represent who or what the institution wants to influence; in the United States, for example, Some donors want to influence votes in Congress or shape public opinion, others want to position themselves or the experts they fund for future government jobs, while others want to push specific areas of research or education.[18] McGann distinguishes think tanks based on independence, source of funding and affiliation, grouping think tanks into autonomous and independent, quasi-independent, government affiliated, quasi-governmental, university affiliated, political-party affiliated or corporate.[19] A new trend, resulting from globalization, is collaboration between policy institutes in different countries. For instance, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace operates offices in Washington, D.C., Beijing, Beirut, Brussels and formerly in Moscow, where it was closed in April 2022.[18] The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the University of Pennsylvania, led by James McGann, annually rates policy institutes worldwide in a number of categories and presents its findings in the Global Go-To Think Tanks rating index.[20] However, this method of the study and assessment of policy institutes has been criticized by researchers such as Enrique Mendizabal and Goran Buldioski, Director of the Think Tank Fund, assisted by the Open Society Institute.[21][22] Activities Think tanks may attempt to broadly inform the public by holding conferences to discuss issues which they may broadcast; encouraging scholars to give public lectures, testifying before committees of governmental bodies; publishing and widely distributing books, magazines, newsletters or journals; creating mailing lists to distribute new publications; and engaging in social media.[23]: 90 Think tanks may privately influence policy by having their members accept bureaucratic positions, having members serve on political advisory boards, inviting policy-makers to events, allowing individuals to work at the think tank; employing former policy-makers; or preparing studies for policy makers.[23]: 95 Governmental theory The role of think tanks has been conceptualized through the lens of social theory. Plehwe argues that think tanks function as knowledge actors within a network of relationships with other knowledge actors. Such relationships including citing academics in publications or employing them on advisory boards, as well as relationships with media, political groups and corporate funders. They argue that these links allow for the construction of a discourse coalitionwith a common aim, citing the example of deregulation of trucking, airlines, and telecommunications in the 1970s.[24]: 369 Plejwe argues that this deregulation represented a discourse coalition between the Ford Motor Company, FedEx, neo-liberal economists, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute.[24]: 372 Elite theory considers how an "elite" influence the actions of think tanks and potentially bypass the political process, analysing the social background and values of those who work in think tanks. Pautz criticizes this viewpoint because there is in practice a variety of viewpoints in think tanks and argues it dismisses the influence that ideas can have.[25]: 424 Advocacy In some cases, corporate interests,[26] military interests[1] and political groups have found it useful to create policy institutes, advocacy organizations, and think tanks. For example, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was formed in the mid-1990s to dispute research finding an association between second-hand smoke and cancer.[27]Military contractors may spend a portion of their tender on funding pro-war think tanks.[1] According to an internal memorandum from Philip Morris Companies referring to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The credibility of the EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] alone,... It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all the EPA's enemies against it at one time.[28] According to the progressive media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, both left-wing and right-wing policy institutes are often quoted and rarely identified as such. The result is that think tank "experts" are sometimes depicted as neutral sources without any ideological predispositions when, in fact, they represent a particular perspective.[29][30]In the United States, think tank publications on education are subjected to expert review by the National Education Policy Center's "Think Twice" think tank review project.[31] A 2014 New York Times report asserted that foreign governments buy influence at many United States think tanks. According to the article: More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors' priorities.[32] Global think tanks South Africa South Korea In South Korea, think tanks are prolific and influential and are a government go-to. Think tanks are prolific in the Korean landscape. Many policy research organisations in Korea focus on economoy and most research is done in public think tanks. There is a strong emphasis on the knowledge-based economy and, according to one respondent, think tank research is generally considered high quality.[48] Switzerland Think tanks based within Switzerland include: New Zealand Think tanks based in New Zealand include: Canada Canada has many notable think tanks (listed in alphabetical order). Each has specific areas of interest with some overlaps. United States As the classification is most often used today, the oldest American think tank is the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, founded in 1910.[91] The Institute for Government Research, which later merged with two organizations to form the Brookings Institution, was formed in 1916. Other early twentieth century organizations now classified as think tanks include the Hoover Institution (1919), The Twentieth Century Fund (1919, and now known as the Century Foundation), the National Bureau of Economic Research (1920), the Council on Foreign Relations (1921), and the Social Science Research Council (1923). The Great Depression and its aftermath spawned several economic policy organizations, such as the National Planning Association (1934), the Tax Foundation (1937),[92] and the Committee for Economic Development (1943).[91] In collaboration with the Douglas Aircraft Company, the Air Force set up the RAND Corporation in 1946 to develop weapons technology and strategic defense analysis. The Hudson Institute is a conservative American think tank founded in 1961 by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation. Recent members include Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state under Donald Trump who joined in 2021.[93] More recently, progressive and liberal think tanks have been established, most notably the Center for American Progress and the Center for Research on Educational Access and Leadership (CREAL). The organization has close ties to former United States President Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats.[94] Think tanks have been important allies for United States presidents since the Reagan administration, writing and suggesting policies to implement, and providing staff for the administration. For recent conservative presidents, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) were closely associated with the Reagan administration. The H.W. Bush administration worked closely with AEI, and the W. Bush administration worked closely with AEI and the Hoover Institution. The Trump administration works closely with the Heritage Foundation. For recent liberal presidents, the Progressive Policy Institute and its parent the Democratic Leadership Council were closely associated with Clinton, and the Center for American Progress was closely associated with the Obama and Biden administrations.[95] Think tanks help shape both foreign and domestic policy. They receive funding from private donors, and members of private organizations. By 2013, the largest 21 think tanks in the US spent more than US$1 billion per year.[96] Think tanks may feel more free to propose and debate controversial ideas than people within government. The progressive media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has identified the top 25 think tanks by media citations, noting that from 2006 to 2007 the number of citations declined 17%.[97] The FAIR report reveals the ideological breakdown of the citations: 37% conservative, 47% centrist, and 16% liberal. Their data show that the most-cited think tank was the Brookings Institution, followed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (May 2023) In 2016, in response to scrutiny about think tanks appearing to have a "conflict of interest" or lack transparency, executive vice president, Martin S. Indyk of Brookings Institution – the "most prestigious think tank in the world"[98]admitted that they had "decided to prohibit corporations or corporate-backed foundations from making anonymous contributions." In August 2016, The New York Times published a series on think tanks that blur the line. One of the cases the journalists cited was Brookings, where scholars paid by a seemingly independent think tank "push donors' agendas amplifying a culture of corporate influence in Washington." For example, in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars the Brookings Institution provided Lennar – one of the United States' largest home builders – with a significant advantage in pursuing a US$8 billion revitalization project in Hunters Point, San Francisco. In 2014, Lennar's then-regional vice president in charge of the San Francisco revitalization, Kofi Bonner was named as a Brookings senior fellow – a position as 'trusted adviser' that carries some distinction. Bruce Katz, a Brookings vice president, also offered to help Lennar "engage with national media to develop stories that highlight Lennar's innovative approach."[98] U.S. government think tanks Government think tanks are also important in the United States, particularly in the security and defense field. These include the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National Defense University, the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College, and the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College. The government funds, wholly or in part, activities at approximately 30 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). FFRDCs, are unique independent nonprofit entities sponsored and funded by the United States government to meet specific long-term technical needs that cannot be met by any other single organization. FFRDCs typically assist government agencies with scientific research and analysis, systems development, and systems acquisition. They bring together the expertise and outlook of government, industry, and academia to solve complex technical problems. These FFRDCs include the RAND Corporation, the MITRE Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Aerospace Corporation, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and other organizations supporting various departments within the United States Government. Similar to the above quasi-governmental organizations are Federal Advisory Committees. These groups, sometimes referred to as commissions, are a form of think tank dedicated to advising the US Presidents or the Executive branch of government. They typically focus on a specific issue and as such, might be considered similar to special interest groups. However, unlike special interest groups these committees have come under some oversight regulation and are required to make formal records available to the public. As of 2002, about 1,000 of these advisory committees were described in the FACA searchable database.[99] - t staff of policy-makers. In Peru after the end of the Fujimori regime, and in Chile after the fall of Pinochet, think tank staff left to form part of the new governments. In the United States, the role of major think tanks is precisely that: host scholars for a few months or years and then lose them to government employ.
How a policy institute addresses these largely depends on how they work, their ideology vs. evidence credentials, and the context in which they operate including funding opportunities, the degree and type of competition they have and their staff. This functional method addresses the inherit challenge of defining a think tank. As Simon James said in 1998, "Discussion of think tanks...has a tendency to get bogged down in the vexed question of defining what we mean by 'think tank'—an exercise that often degenerates into futile semantics."[102] It is better (as in the Network Functions Approach) to describe what the organisation should do. Then the shape of the organisation should follow to allow this to happen. The following framework (based on Stephen Yeo's description of think tanks' mode of work) is described in Enrique Mendizabal's blog "onthinktanks": First, policy institutes may work in or base their funding on one or more of:[103] - Independent research: this would be work done with core or flexible funding that allows the researchers the liberty to choose their research questions and method. It may be long term and could emphasize 'big ideas' without direct policy relevance. However, it could emphasize a major policy problem that requires a thorough research and action investment.
- Consultancy: this would be work done by commission with specific clients and addressing one or two major questions. Consultancies often respond to an existing agenda.
- Influencing/advocacy: this would be work done by communications, capacity development, networking, campaigns, lobbying, etc. It is likely to be based on research based evidence emerging from independent research or consultancies.
Second, policy institutes may base their work or arguments on: - Ideology, values or interests
- Applied, empirical or synthesis research
- Theoretical or academic research
According to the National Institute for Research Advancement, a Japanese policy institute, think tanks are "one of the main policy actors in democratic societies ..., assuring a pluralistic, open and accountable process of policy analysis, research, decision-making and evaluation".[104] A study in early 2009 found a total of 5,465 think tanks worldwide. Of that number, 1,777 were based in the United States and approximately 350 in Washington, DC, alone.[105] See also
PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 13, 2025 Stephen Heintz, President and CEO of the RBF and Brain Finlay, President and CEO of the Stimson Center. Photo courtesy of the Stimson Center. We are living in an age of exceptional complexity and turbulence. But the institutions that have guided international relations and global problem solving since the mid-20th century are no longer capable of addressing the challenges of the new millennium, says Stephen Heintz, President and CEO of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, in his report, A Logic for the Future. As a new year unfolds before us, the Stimson Center hosted a thought-provoking conversation with Stephen Heintz on January 9, 2025, to unpack the challenge at hand and presents credible pathways for U.S. global leadership in an interdependent world. In an era of growing great power competition, conflict, and crisis, Heintz outlines the renovations and retrofits required for the existing international system to confront the challenges ahead.
PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 18, 2024 Funders, climate experts, and structural democracy reformers gathered to identify resources to guide funding for tools organizers, policy makers, and communities need to anticipate and cope with climate-related shocks. Photo by Keecha Harris for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Because U.S. democratic institutions tie voting systems and political power to fixed districts, managing highly mobile populations with rapidly shifting needs is challenging. So, when climate disasters strike, affected communities bear both the brunt of physical destruction and the long-term destabilization of their political agency. Regions devastated by climate disasters often see disruptions in voting patterns, organizing efforts, and resource distribution. And, as a result of historical segregation and redlining, both formal and informal, climate impacts disproportionately affect people of color and low-income people concentrated in high-climate-risk communities, exacerbating existing inequities. Read more in Candid Insights.
370 likes, 8 comments - officialbenkalu on November 26, 2024: "Yesterday, I engaged in a roundtable discussion with representatives of International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to explore collaborative strategies for addressing the humanitarian, ecological, and systemic crisis affecting the Southeast region.
The Southeast has been grappling with severe crisis characterized by displacement, violence, and ecological challenges including natural disasters. Recent reports indicate that over 260 individuals have been displaced from their homes due to these multifaceted crisis.
During the discussion, we identified critical areas of intervention, analyzing sustainable solutions to address these pressing issues in partnership with my office and the Peace In South East Project. I am deeply committed to championing legislative interventions aimed at that address these issues comprehensively.
I appreciate the INGOs for their partnership and contributions as we work together to proffer sustainable solutions, restore stability, and bring hope to the people.".
JUST VISION'S GLOBAL LEADERSHIP PUBLISHED ON APRIL 9, 2014
FORMER PROGRAM DIRECTOR BILL MOODY REFLECTS ON 40 YEARS AT THE FUND PUBLISHED ON MARCH 5, 2015 In his new book, Staying the Course: Reflections on 40 Years of Grantmaking at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, William S. Moody, a former program director, charts the opportunities of working with individuals and communities around the world to make lasting and positive change. Another former RBF staff member, Priscilla Lewis, served as editor. Over the course of his career, Moody’s geographic areas of focus included Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Western Balkans. The grantmaking programs he primarily focused on included cultivating sustainable development, and ensuring the healthy democracy of an engaged citizenry and an active nonprofit sector. Other concerns that weave through the book include the protection of human rights and the pursuit of peace and security. Beyond the monetary support that a foundation can provide, Moody’s retelling also emphasizes the importance of time and energy spent with grantees. RELATED LINKS Read more about the book on Alliance Magazine’s website Order the book from Amazon within the United States or internationally via Alliance [PDF]
MAXIMIZING IMPACT WITH NEW MODELS OF PHILANTHROPY PUBLISHED ON JULY 21, 2015 During a plenary session at the Center for Effective Philanthropy's (CEP) National Conference in San Francisco in May 2015, Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, participated in a panel discussion about different models of philanthropy and how each can maximize foundation impact. Heintz said foundations can demonstrate leadership by using intellectual, endowment, reputational, and relational capital, in addition to their grantmaking dollars. The Fund's decision to divest from fossil fuels stemmed from that broader context, he said. The panel discussion also included: Jacquelline Fuller of Google.org, Larry Kramer of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Carol Larson of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Clara Miller, of the F.B. Heron Foundation, Cari Tuna of Good Ventures, Jane Wales, of the Global Philanthropy Forum and The Aspen Institute, and Sylvia Yee, of the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund. It was moderated by Phil Buchanan, president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy. RELATED LINKS Learn more about the conference on the CEP's website Recent grants
FOUNDATIONS CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY IN CORPORATE POLITICAL SPENDING PUBLISHED ON MAY 26, 2015 Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz is among nearly 70 foundation leaders asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to require corporations to disclose their political spending. “Shareholders have a right to know what public companies are spending to influence the political process,” Heintz said on NPR. Although companies are not required by law to disclose political spending, the Center for Political Accountability, an RBF grantee, has been working with corporations to voluntarily embrace transparency as part of their governance standards. Bruce Freed, president of the center, said 140 companies have committed to disclose their political spending, including a majority of the Standard and Poor's 100. The landscape of political fundraising changed after Citizens United, a 2010 Supreme Court decision to loosen restrictions on political spending by corporations and other groups. This allowed an influx of spending beyond the existing committees of political parties. According to data from RBF grantee The Center for Responsive Politics, total non-party outside spending on the 2012 presidential election was triple that of the 2008 election. RELATED LINKS:
MA JUN IS HONORED WITH A 2015 SKOLL AWARD FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP PUBLISHED ON APRIL 15, 2015 Ma Jun in the field, documenting waste discharge from a textile factory.
Photos: Skoll Foundation/Gabriel Diamond. Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), is among four recipients of a 2015 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship. Ma was recognized for his leadership of IPE and its ongoing work on projects that strengthen public participation in environmental governance. Most recently, IPE released a pollution mapping application for smartphones, which allows users to report and track dangerous levels of industrial air and water pollution in their communities. The organization is also part of a coalition of Chinese NGOs, collectively known as the Green Choice Alliance, which investigates corporate compliance with environmental regulations across different industries to create a database of violators. The database is used as a resource for the general public, as well as for large brands in order to screen the manufacturers in their supply chain. As an investigative journalist, Ma shed light on the relationship between existing government environmental regulations and corporate polluters. His book China’s Water Crisis was the first major Chinese-language publication about the country’s environment. The RBF has been a supporter of IPE since 2007. RELATED LINKS RBF Close Up on Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs IPE.org.cn (English)
PLURIBUS BRINGS TOGETHER 14 PROJECTS RECONNECTING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS WITH THE PUBLIC PUBLISHED ON APRIL 20, 2016 18 Million Rising has combined new tech with expertise in mobilizing volunteers to break down the language barrier so that the 20% of Americans who speak a language other than English at home and the almost 7% who speak no English can still participate in civic and political life. The former Republican campaign strategist who took down the House Majority Leader while being outspent 20:1 joins forces with the mastermind from several left-wing campaigns to develop an open source guide for running a $250,000 competitive congressional campaign. Young people want to engage in political dialogue. Together with Mic and Public Radio International, the 92nd Street Y is hosting the UnConvention, a multi-media, multi-platform conversation of, by, and for millennials about what matters to them this election season. On April 5, The Pluribus Project announced a portfolio of Political Game Changers to tackle some of the biggest problems facing our democracy. A nonpartisan special initiative with the Aspen Institute, Pluribus works to develop new ways to move political campaigns beyond big money and extreme ideologies to win campaigns and become more responsive to broad public interests. More than 120 teams submitted proposals in response to an open call; 14 teams were selected to present their pitches during a summit in New York City on March 21. The presenters come from across the political spectrum, including entrepreneurs, student activists, labor organizers, researchers, and veteran campaigners. The projects, which aim to lay the groundwork for changing the way that the next political campaigns are waged and won, fall under three categories: leveraging people power, winning the (future) media war, and engaging interested bystanders. All 14 projects will receive initial funding from Pluribus, which is also mobilizing additional support for the projects, including involving the public through a month-long crowdfunded campaign on Indiegogo. RELATED LINKS Pluribus' Indiegogo Campaign Huffington Post: On Political Campaigns: Hate the Game, Not the Players (April 6, 2016) Recent grants to the Pluribus Project
MONTENEGRIN PRIME MINISTER PLEDGES SUPPORT FOR CIVIL SOCIETY HOUSE PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 Program Director Ajsa Hadzibegovic of Civic Alliance, RBF President Stephen Heintz, Montenegrin Prime Minister Milo Dukanovic, and Slavoljub Stijepovic, mayor of Podgorica. In Podgorica, Montenegro, RBF President Stephen Heintz signed a memorandum of understanding with Prime Minister Milo Dukanovic, Mayor Slavoljub Stijepovic and Ajsa Hadzibegovic, program director of Civic Alliance, in support of a Civil Society House in the capital city. Under the Fund's Western Balkans program, it has worked with Montenegro's Fund for Active Citizenship, a domestic grantmaking foundation, which provides support to Civic Alliance, along with over 70 other small NGOs and informal groups working to cultivate active participation of citizens in community life. Establishing a Civil Society House in Podgorica will ensure the long‐term sustainability and independence of civil society in Montenegro. Over half of the country's civil society organizations are based in the capital and providing a shared space for them will strengthen their organizational capacity, as well as increase their public visibility, credibility, and inclusiveness. RELATED LINKS Civil Society House to Be Built in Montenegro (September 18, 2015) Recent grants to the Fund for Active Citizenship Recent grants to Civic Alliance More information on the Western Balkans program
THE FUND SUPPORTS THE NONPROFIT SECTOR’S NONPARTISAN NATURE PUBLISHED ON MARCH 24, 2017 The Rockefeller Brothers Fund voices strong support of the preservation of the Johnson Amendment, an important provision in the Federal tax code which ensures nonpartisanship for the nonprofit sector. We have joined as a signatory to an open letter to members of Congress, to support maintenance of this important provision which prohibits 501(c)(3)s from endorsing, opposing, or contributing to political candidates. The Johnson Amendment has been in place for more than 60 years. The provision allows nonprofits the freedom to deliver on their mission without being encumbered by partisan politics, increasing their effectiveness and allowing for greater public trust. In a related Op-Ed for The Hill, Tim Delaney, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, and Vikki Spruill, president and CEO of the Council on Foundations, make the case that American “society is better today because 501(c)(3) organizations operate as safe havens from the caustic partisanship that currently bedevils our country” and that nonprofits provide an area for communities to collaborate on creative solutions without the distraction of party labels. RELATED LINKS: Community Letter in Support of Nonpartisanship The Hill: Keep Partisan Politics Out of the Nonprofit Sector (March 22, 2017) Nonprofit Quarterly: Losing the Johnson Amendment Would Destroy the Unique Political Role of Nonprofits (February 6, 2017)
RBF PRESIDENT STEPHEN HEINTZ ANNOUNCES INCREASE OF 2017 PROGRAM GRANTS BUDGET PUBLISHED ON MARCH 9, 2017 Recognizing the challenges to many of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s program priorities presented by the political climate, the board of trustees has approved an increase in the Fund’s grants budget by nearly 12 percent for 2017, Fund President Stephen Heintz announced today. The board of trustees affirmed RBF’s strategic approach to global engagement and directed the additional funds be used to support the Fund’s work with our grantee organizations to protect and strengthen the vitality of our democracy. The Fund will seek opportunities to address new threats to an inclusive democracy in the United States and to defend people, organizations, principles, and policies that are at risk, while also striving to advance further progress on longstanding RBF program goals. “The RBF believes that philanthropy is important to the health of a vibrant democracy. We’re grateful that our trustees have taken this step to bolster our resources at a time of increasingly rapid change,” Heintz said. “The Fund will immediately begin to look at additional ways we can advance the work of our grantee partners that is crucial for building a more just, sustainable, and peaceful future.” RELATED LINKS: RBF Program Guidelines RBF Grantmaking: At a Glance RBF Grants Search database
|
PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 15, 2025 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts in our nation are at a crossroads, with major implications for the workplace. At their core, workplace DEI efforts reflect an aspiration to create an environment where all individuals are seen, their differences are recognized and respected, and they are treated fairly. DEI can engender a sense of belonging, a necessary ingredient for people to most fully and positively contribute to the workplace. If workplaces can uphold the principles of inclusion and equity despite the prevailing rhetoric of division and derision, then our society has a higher chance of realizing our collective potential. At the RBF, our DEI efforts have instilled a deeper sense of belonging among staff, which has unlocked improved performance outcomes—and we have evidence from periodic independent assessments of grantmaking impact, relationships with our grantees, endowment performance, and staff and trustees’ sense of belonging and job satisfaction. Sadly, this evidence-based narrative at the RBF and other workplaces has thus far been insufficient to counter mis- and disinformation campaigns that aim to delegitimize DEI efforts. Historical efforts to dismantle racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry in America have always been marked by intervals of progress followed by sharp periods of regress. Every move toward greater diversity, equity, and inclusion—and therefore justice—has sparked reactions that can manifest as exclusion, hatred, and even violence. Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction period (1865 to 1877) ushered in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship, and erected voting rights for African Americans. But the end of Reconstruction marked the beginning of the Jim Crow era that included, among other devastating events, the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, which the U.S. Department of Justice recently acknowledged was a coordinated military-style attack. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, the March on Washington, and the Selma to Montgomery marches catalyzed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Soon after, renewed “law-and-order” rhetoric cemented President Nixon’s Southern Strategy, which targeted affirmative action and desegregation policies and weakened federal protections. The election of the first Black president in 2008, symbolizing racial progress, paved the way for deeper exploration systemic racism and approaches to dismantle it. It was followed by the 2016 elections, accompanied by a rise in white nationalism and policies targeting voting rights, immigration, and affirmative action. The years since the murder of George Floyd and the racial justice uprising that followed have also elicited a sharp and deep reaction: intensifying efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives, including legislation to ban critical race theory in schools, vilification of LGBTQIA+ people, and challenges progress made in the feminist era not limited to the current assault on reproductive rights. At the RBF, we have recently examined our history with regard to race and gender so that it can inform our next steps. We are leaning into long-held values and learning from past gains, as well as missed opportunities, to advance strategically and future-proof our progress, even as the nation faces attacks on DEI and the pursuit of justice that have caused some workplaces to reverse or slow their commitments. We are gleaning important lessons from the past, including how communities came together in diverse coalitions to counter malevolent forces that threatened to undo progress toward diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. The RBF and others must take steps to further demonstrate the value of DEI work not only to social justice but to organizational outcomes. For example, the Fund will continue to document measurable impacts from our DEI efforts that are core to our mission. We will also forge external partnerships, including with allies across lines of difference, to broaden community support, sharpen best practices, and advance collective advocacy. The work of dismantling racism and other forms of bigotry in America has been an interplay of progress and regress. Periods of advancement have often been met with resistance and backlash, necessitating renewed efforts and strategies to combat interpersonal, institutional, and systemic inequalities and injustices. Workplace strategies are important for the broader social context and solutions that can contribute to a thriving multiracial and multicultural society. The current environment may make it harder to fight exclusion, discrimination, and hate, but this is also a critical time for those who want to preserve the progress we have made to stand up for hard-won achievements. The RBF is reinforcing mechanisms that will help us to resist backsliding. We will heed past lessons as we devise contemporary strategies so that we can continue building a workplace where everyone belongs and a world where equal opportunity and fair outcomes are a foundation of society. The values of inclusion, equity, and justice are part of the RBF legacy and critical to our work advancing social change for a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world.
PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 20, 2024 Rusting hull of Soviet tank in Balkh province, Afghanistan. Photo by mtcurado via iStock. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) established its Peacebuilding program in 2011 with a goal to advance “just and durable peace”—not simply the absence of armed conflict but the presence of structures, resources, and culture that sustain peace. A distinctive feature of the RBF Peacebuilding program has been its joint focus on conflict prevention at a global level and conflict transformation in specific local contexts. In both realms, the Peacebuilding program supports policy analysis, dialogue across lines of division, and constituencies for peace. Since its inception, the Peacebuilding program has focused on Afghanistan, Iran, and Israel-Palestine because of the outsized role that the United States has played in these conflicts and their potential ripple effects on global peace and security. As conflicts around the world become more complex—and more deadly—the RBF is directing increased funding to efforts that consider the broader trajectory of U.S. foreign policy and possibilities for international cooperation. These considerations have long shaped our approach to peacebuilding. The Peacebuilding program’s ongoing support for conflict transformation in Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine exemplifies a hallmark of RBF grantmaking: strategic, long-term commitments to prepare and empower civil society to seize opportunities for both gradual progress and catalytic shifts, even against daunting odds. The coming years appear likely to be pivotal for Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine, with significant implications for international law and global stability. Some grantmaking priorities will evolve amid shifts in domestic and global contexts. Afghanistan is no longer in a state of active conflict since the Taliban retook power in 2021, but it remains exceptionally unstable. In the coming years, the Peacebuilding program will support efforts in Afghanistan and the diaspora to build a foundation for an eventual comprehensive and durable peace, seek international accountability, and reshape U.S. foreign policy in the region to uplift rights and justice. Over the past decade, the Peacebuilding program has made grants to organizations working on the ground in Israel-Palestine to advance peace, rights, justice, security, and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians alike. That grantmaking will continue in the years ahead. The program has also supported organizations in the United States that have prompted new discourse challenging perceptions of the Israel-Palestine conflict’s intractability. The next phase of this grantmaking will emphasize efforts to translate support for diplomatic solutions to the conflict into U.S. foreign policy. The United States spends more on national defense than the next ten countries combined, and the trillion-dollar defense industry forms a powerful political and economic constituency for militarist approaches to foreign policy. Since 2020, the Peacebuilding program has supported the development of new foreign policy postures based on interdependence and coexistence rather than primacy and coercion. The program will increase its support for these efforts in the coming years. In an increasingly complex, multipolar world order, however, U.S. action will not be sufficient to address pressing global challenges like climate change and nuclear proliferation without new modes of engagement with and among its peers. Fifteen years of RBF support for Track II dialogues between the United States and Iran helped lay the groundwork for the historic 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, demonstrating that there are opportunities for philanthropy to advance international cooperation, which the program will continue to pursue. The program will also phase out refugee-related grantmaking by 2026. RBF grantmaking helped establish a model for funding refugee-led organizations, recognizing that refugees and displaced people are their own strongest advocates. However, the complex legal, political, and operational systems that impact how refugees access rights and protections are distinct from those of the peacebuilding field, and the work did not substantively contribute to our goal of advancing just and durable peace. The core principles of the Peacebuilding program remain unchanged. Revised program guidelines approved by the RBF board of trustees in October 2024 reflect a logical progression of the Peacebuilding program and reaffirm our commitment to nonviolence, justice, and engaging those most affected by conflict in developing solutions. These guidelines also consolidate our grantmaking strategies from four to three to ensure that “defending civil society and human rights to foster sustainable peace” is integrated into all our grantmaking rather than functioning as an independent area of work. Read the updated program guidelines here.
PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 13, 2024 Volunteers help clean waste in a park. Photo courtesy of RgStudio. “Creating the kind of vibrant, multicultural democracy we need in this century requires investing in building trust among citizens, in building civic culture, in bringing people together and helping them work together in their communities to solve local problems. We really need to focus on the culture of democracy as well as the machinery of democracy.” Rockefeller Brothers Fund President and CEO Stephen Heintz joins Phil Buchanan and Grace Nicolette of the Giving Done Right podcast to discuss the values and challenges of charitable giving in this moment, and the process of rebuilding trust among the American electorate through repairing civic culture and understanding. Listen to the full interview on Giving Done Right, a podcast by the Center for Effective Philanthropy.
RESOURCE ON IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION TO HELP CITY GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY PUBLISHED ON MARCH 11, 2014
CIVIL SOCIETY LEADS COURT REFORMS IN KOSOVO PUBLISHED ON MARCH 31, 2015 A recent report by Princeton University’s Innovations for Successful Societieshighlights the collaboration among civil society leaders to make necessary changes to Kosovo’s judicial processes during its nascent independence. The report, An Eye on Justice: Monitoring Kosovo’s Courts, 2008–2014, tells the story of Jeta Xharra of RBF grantee the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), Haki Abazi, program director of the Fund’s Western Balkans program, and Faik Ispahiu of Internews Kosova, and their work to establish a judicial monitoring program in an effort to rebuild public trust in Kosovo’s court system. More than a year into the project, monitors confirmed a host of procedural violations and lack of professionalism. One notable finding was that during the project’s first year, only 26 percent of the 513 total court sessions monitored took place in a courtroom; the majority were held in the judges’ own offices. By 2014, the shift toward transparency in Kosovo’s courts was noticeable and monitors were more often reporting improvements in the proceedings of Kosovo’s courts. RELATED LINKS Read the report, An Eye on Justice: Monitoring Kosovo’s Courts, 2008–2014 Learn more about the RBF’s Western Balkans program
THE FUND REVISES ITS NEW YORK CITY PROGRAM GUIDELINES PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 5, 2015 Recognizing the many accomplishments of our grantees and the Fund's interest in concentrating limited resources on other areas in which we are currently working to achieve greater impact, the RBF will conclude its grantmaking of civic and political participation of immigrant communities in New York City. From 2010 to 2014, the Fund made 44 grants totaling $3.4 million in the New York City democratic practice portfolio. Over the last five years, the Fund has supported immigration forums, new partnerships and collaborations, academic research, new tools for dissemination of best practices, innovative citizenship outreach models, and new leadership that have helped establish a positive perspective on the many contributions New York's immigrant communities make to its economy and civic dynamism. At this time, the local needs are focused on basic social and legal services, which are not traditional areas of funding for the RBF. Staff will be exploring a variety of options for the future of the New York arts and culture grantmaking during 2015, including opportunities to contribute to immigrant integration through cultural expression. RELATED LINKS View the revised guidelines View related grants
THE FUND REVISES ITS CHINA PROGRAM GUIDELINES PUBLISHED ON JULY 2, 2015 The Fund has revised the guidelines for its China grantmaking program to express the increasingly integrated nature of the RBF's work on pollution mitigation, public health, and climate change, as well as the development of China’s philanthropic sector. In identifying four strategies for advancing heathy and low carbon development, the revised guidelines reflect the evolution of the larger context in China and RBF staff experience, as well as insights from an impact assessment commissioned by the Fund and conducted by independent evaluators from fall 2014 to spring 2015. While not a significant shift in the Fund’s Pivotal Place: China program, the revised guidelines aim to improve communication with grant seekers about the Fund’s priorities in China. RELATED LINKS View the revised Program Guidelines
See recent China Program grants
FUND REVISES ITS DEMOCRATIC PRACTICE PROGRAM GUIDELINES PUBLISHED ON APRIL 21, 2015 In considering the specific challenges and opportunities facing today’s democracy and democratic engagement in the United States, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has revised the program guidelines for its Democratic Practice–United States portfolio. The revised guidelines recognize that the goal of advancing a vital and inclusive U.S. democracy is both to improve democratic systems and to enable U.S. citizens and residents to leverage these systems to advance social, racial, and economic justice. The Fund will continue to support grantmaking toward structural reforms intended to eliminate the outsized influence over public policy by large political donors, reform election systems, and protect voting rights. Additionally, the Fund will explore supporting innovations in American democratic practices that promote more effective organizing efforts and improve the ability of underrepresented populations to meaningfully influence public policy. RELATED LINKS READ THE MEMO, WHICH SERVED AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PORTFOLIO’S NEW FRAMEWORK AND FUNDING GUIDELINES, AND WAS BASIS OF DISCUSSION AT THE MARCH 2015 BOARD MEETING VIEW THE REVISED PROGRAM GUIDELINES
LOCAL PHILANTHROPY SERVES AS A LIFELINE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS PUBLISHED ON MAY 12, 2016 The Serbian foundation Trag, with the support of the Belgrade City Council, the International Rescue Committee, and others, established information and communications centers in the parks of three Serbian cities to provide incoming refugees with the support they need to make a safer journey through Europe. Courtesy of tragfondacija.org. As civil society operates in an increasingly hostile space, the role of local, grassroots grantmakers has never been more important, according to Jenny Hodgson, executive director of the Global Fund for Community Foundations (GFCF). Local funding is crucial for building healthy, inclusive communities, Hodgson wrote in a recent blog post for Open Democracy. Philanthropic sectors are emerging in countries including Serbia, previously thought of as an “aid recipient,” and China, where donors have established indigenous foundations that match or surpass their international peers in asset size. Hodgson noted that for many organizations being a familiar, local presence allows them to engage on sensitive topics like refugee support or peacebuilding. RELATED LINKS OpenDemocracy.net: Local funding is not just an option anymore—it’s an imperative(May 10, 2016) Recent Grants to the Global Fund for Community Foundations
Visit our interactive timeline to learn more about the Fund's institutional milestones and program highlights over the years.
THE FUND REFRAMES ITS GLOBAL DEMOCRATIC PRACTICE GRANTMAKING PORTFOLIO PUBLISHED ON APRIL 17, 2017
ON THE LOSS OF DAVID ROCKEFELLER, 1915–2017 PUBLISHED ON MARCH 20, 2017 RBF Board Chair Valerie Rockefeller, Founding Trustee David Rockefeller, and President Stephen Heintz in 2015. (Todd Shapera Photography) The children of John D. Rockefeller, pictured in 1960: John D. 3rd, Winthrop, Abby, Laurance, David, and Nelson. (© Ezra Stoller/Esto)Photo © Ezra Stoller/Esto. With deep sadness, the trustees and staff of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund mourn the passing of our founder, David Rockefeller, who launched the RBF in 1940 along with his four older brothers, and devoted his remarkable life to creating a better world. Mr. Rockefeller served as a trustee of the Fund for 40 years, and in his 2002 Memoirs, called it “the most significant joint philanthropic endeavor” of the brothers’ generation in the Rockefeller family. In 1980, he became chairman of the Fund, the last of the founding brothers to lead the organization, and then would remain as an advisory and life trustee from his retirement in 1987 until his death at age 101. “The entire Rockefeller family mourns the passing of our Uncle David, who has guided the family as a whole and shaped our individual work in philanthropy, all the while carrying himself with a sense of humility that will endure in us and our work,” said Valerie Rockefeller, chair of the board of trustees and grandniece of Mr. Rockefeller. “His spirit and values remain central to the Fund, including a commitment to lasting relationships, an understanding of global interdependence and the importance of creativity, and a deep respect for the freedoms of every individual and the sanctity of the natural environment.” Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, expressed that “the leadership and staff of the Fund have immense gratitude for the vision and legacy David has given us. Along with the Rockefeller family, we have been greatly blessed by David’s leadership for so many years and we reflect on his passing with profound sadness. Serving as the Fund’s first secretary at its initial meeting in December 1940, he carried the Rockefeller philanthropic tradition, begun by his father and grandfather, well into the 21st century. David has been a friend and mentor since my tenure began at the Fund sixteen years ago, and while we have lost his human presence, he remains the North Star that guides us in our efforts to help create a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world.” Mr. Rockefeller’s guiding influence on the philanthropic efforts of his family extended beyond the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. He fostered younger leadership by founding the Rockefeller Family Fund in 1967, and the David Rockefeller Fund in 1989. In addition to his work leading Chase Manhattan Bank, Mr. Rockefeller also leaves a legacy of engagement with education, development, and the arts in New York City and beyond, serving as chairman of institutions including The Rockefeller University, Harvard College Board of Overseers, Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association, Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture, and the Museum of Modern Art.
|
