Philanthropic involvement in education politics has become bolder and more visible. Have foundations changed funding strategies to enhance their political influence? Using data from 2000, 2005, and 2010, we investigate giving patterns among the 15 largest education foundations. Our analyses show growing support for national-level advocacy organizations. Furthermore, we find that foundations increasingly fund organizations that operate as “jurisdictional challengers” by competing with traditional public sector institutions. We apply social network analysis to demonstrate the growing prevalence of convergent grant-making—multiple foundations supporting the same organizations. These results suggest that a sector once criticized for not leveraging its investments now increasingly seeks to maximize its impact by supporting alternative providers, investing concurrently, and supporting grantees to engage in policy debates.
BorgattiS.EverettM.FreemanL. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BromleyP.Tompkins-StangeM. (2012, November). Walking the line: How private foundations manage advocacy activities and engage in public policy influence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Indianapolis, IN.
5.
DahlR. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
Debray-PelotE.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42.
7.
FerrisJ. M. (2003). Foundations and pubic policymaking: Leveraging philanthropic dollars, knowledge, and networks. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy.
8.
FleishmanJ. L. (2009). The foundation: How private wealth is changing the world. New York: Public Affairs.
9.
GreeneJ. P. (2005). Buckets into the sea: Why philanthropy isn’t changing schools, and how it could. In HessF. M. (Ed.), With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K-12 education (pp. 49–56). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10.
HenigJ. R. (2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
11.
HenigJ. R.StoneC. N. (2008). Rethinking school reform: The distractions of dogma and the potential for a new politics of progressive pragmatism. American Journal of Education, 114(3), 191–218.
McDonnellL. M. (2012). Educational accountability and policy feedback. Educational Policy, 27(2), 170–189.
14.
MehtaJ.TelesS. (2012). Jurisdictional politics: A new federal role in education. In HessF. M.KellyA. P. (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit: Lessons from a half-century of federal efforts to improve America’s schools (pp. 197–216). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
15.
MoeT. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
16.
OrrM. (1999). Black social capital: The politics of school reform in Baltimore 1986–1998. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
17.
QuinnR.Tompkins-StangeM.MeyersonD. (in press). Beyond grantmaking: Philanthropic foundations as agents of change and institutional entrepreneurs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
18.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
19.
ReckhowS. (2010). Disseminating and legitimating a new approach: The role of foundations. In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R.LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 277–304). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
20.
ReckhowS. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
ReedD. S. (2009). Is there an expectations gap? Educational federalism and the demographic distribution of proficiency cut scores. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 718–742.
RichA. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
RichW. (1996). Black mayors and school politics: The failure of reform in Detroit, Gary, and Newark. New York: Garland Publishing.
25.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136.
26.
ShippsD. (2006). School reform, corporate style: Chicago, 1880–2000. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
27.
StoneC. N.HenigJ. R.JonesB. D.PierannunziC. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
28.
TelesS. M. (2008). The rise of the conservative legal movement: The battle for control of the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
ThümlerE. (2011). Foundations, schools, and the state: School improvement partnerships in Germany and the United States as legitimacy-generating arrangements. Public Management Review, 13(8), 1095–1116.
30.
Tompkins-StangeM. (2013). ‘Big think’ or ‘bottom-up’? How private philanthropic foundations seek to influence public education policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University Graduate School of Education, Stanford, CA.
31.
WalkerJ. L. (1983). The origins and maintenance of interest groups in America. The American Political Science Review, 77(2), 390–406.
32.
ZunzO. (2012). Philanthropy in America: A history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
