Blog

Why Democracy Fund is Declaring Independence From Bipartisanship

/
June 16, 2020

For the past six years, Democracy Fund has distinguished itself as an organization that has sought common ground between the left and right. We have worked hard to engage ideologically diverse partners and have pursued strategies that could garner support from across the political spectrum. In doing so, we have sought to address the polarization and gridlock that have come to define our nation’s political system.

This bipartisan approach has enabled us to play a rare role in the democracy reform space. We supported the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, which was co-chaired by the lawyers to the Obama and Romney presidential campaigns. We worked to create space for more ideologically diverse groups to advocate for campaign finance reform. And, we bolstered conservatives who took lonely stands on behalf of the rule of law during the Mueller investigation.

We are proud of this work and remain committed to the belief that principled compromise and broad coalitions are important for creating lasting change. We know that there are people across the ideological spectrum who care deeply about our country and we benefit from being exposed to diverse points of view.

But it is time to be clear: we are unwilling to compromise on fundamental principles of a healthy democracy. There can be no compromise when a Black person’s life is taken by a police officer as a result of a racist culture and institution. There can be no compromise when our free press is attacked as the enemy of the people. There can be no compromise when children are separated from their parents at the border, or when Muslims are “banned” from entering the United States. There can be no compromise when a party puts its political interests before the interests of conducting free and fair elections. There can be no compromise when leaders ignore the rule of law. These are violations of the non-negotiable ideals of a just and open democracy.

As more political leaders have abandoned their commitment to core democratic principles, we have increasingly found it impossible to describe our work as “bipartisan” without compromising on who we are and what we believe. Simply put, a commitment to “bipartisanship” above all else is untenable when our political leaders openly embrace authoritarian politics and reject values like pluralism and the rule of law.

I am therefore sharing today that Democracy Fund will no longer use the term “bipartisan” to describe our organization. Rather, we are an independent, nonpartisan foundation that advocates for an open and just democracy. As an organization, we choose to anchor ourselves in our democratic principles rather than the space negotiated between the two political parties. I know this decision will disappoint some of our partners and energize others, but I believe it is what our principles require of us. Democracy Fund will champion the leaders who defend democracy and who challenge our political system to be more open and just.

Democracy Fund’s work must be driven by evidence, learning, and our core beliefs about what is essential to a healthy democracy. We have long held six beliefs:

  1. In the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under the law.
  2. That voting is the cornerstone of our democracy.
  3. That constitutional checks and balances and respect for the rule of law are critical to protect against abuses of power.
  4. That a healthy democracy cannot exist without a participatory, vibrant public square, including an independent, free press.
  5. That informed dialogue and principled compromise are essential to governing a large, diverse, and complex society like the United States.
  6. That political leaders and elected officials bear an uncommon burden to act with integrity.

We proudly stand for these beliefs and will unabashedly defend them. Today, we are adding another democratic value to this list:

We believe a just and equitable political system must eliminate structural barriers to ensure historically excluded communities have meaningful influence in our democracy.

Americans must acknowledge that our political system has been intentionally designed to marginalize many — particularly Black and Brown people — since its founding. Built on land stolen from its original inhabitants with the labor of enslaved people, our nation initially and repeatedly denied a voice to all but a privileged few white men. At Democracy Fund, we believe that we must amplify the efforts of unjustly marginalized groups to be heard and be represented, just as we must stand against those who promote bigotry and hate.

In recent years, Democracy Fund has been working to create a more diverse, equitable democracy through efforts like becoming a founding partner of the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, supporting communities targeted by hate, fostering a more representative Congress, and combating barriers to voting for historically disenfranchised communities. We remain committed to eliminating structural barriers not only in what we do, but by taking an inward look at how we do it.

While I am proud of the work that we and our grantees have done to contribute to a more equitable democracy, I know Democracy Fund has fallen short of what is needed. Our bipartisan positioning has too often been an excuse to not grapple with and address the deep injustice that is ingrained in our political institutions and system. Indeed, adding a core belief that explicitly elevates the need for equitable influence and power is a small step toward rectifying that failure, but it’s not enough. Moving forward, we are prioritizing a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in our work, including our philanthropic practices, and we invite you to hold us accountable as we do this work.

The challenges facing our democracy are urgent and complex, and I feel a deep sense of responsibility and service to the field — and to our mission of defending democracy and challenging our political system to be more open and just. While our political system is resilient and has endured through times of severe stress, the ongoing health of our republic depends on each of us standing against immediate threats to our democracy and engaging in the long struggle to ensure that our country lives up to its democratic ideals. Led by our principles, Democracy Fund aspires to be a better champion and ally to those in the fight.

Cover Photo: Participants in a Memorial Day Parade in Washington, DC. Photo by Roberto Galen.

Op-Ed

The Iowa Caucuses were a disaster — and here’s why it shouldn’t worry Americans

February 4, 2020

Despite legitimate concerns about Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, Americans should rest assured that our elections are secure, accurate and fair.

Report

Building U.S. Resilience to Political Violence

Heather Hurlburt, Dr. Nichole Argo Ben Itzhak, Rachel Brown, Laura Livingston, and Samantha Owens
/
December 10, 2019

Research on international violence and peacebuilding reveals that much can be done to prevent violence and increase resilience — if leaders with influence and resources are ready to face these challenges squarely now.

Blog

Strengthening Democracy by Supporting a Just and Inclusive Society

April 16, 2018

​At Democracy Fund, we believe in the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under the law. All people have intrinsic value and dignity, and bigotry in any form undermines our democracy. When these values are threatened, we will stand up to protect and preserve fundamental individual rights as enshrouded in the United States Constitution.

Though bigotry and prejudice are not new phenomena, the 2016 presidential campaign marked a turning point in the tone and tenor of modern political conversation — including a sharp increase in charged rhetoric across cultural, ideological, and partisan divides. Subsequently, findings from Democracy Fund’s Voter Survey Group, have revealed that existing political divides were super-charged by a seemingly renewed cultural anxiety related to Americanism, race, immigration, and Islam/Muslims.

Like many who care about the health of our political system, we at Democracy Fund have been increasingly alarmed by what has followed the election — from the implementation of policies targeting immigrant and minority communities to the rise in hate-crimes against communities of color and Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) communities.

In response to these disconcerting developments, Democracy Fund has followed the lead of extraordinary Americans throughout the country who are working to ensure the resilience and safety of targeted communities by launching our Special Project on Fostering a Just and Inclusive Society. Through this initiative, we aim to help protect those whose civil rights and safety are endangered in this volatile political landscape—particularly Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) and immigrant communities. This project centers around a few main objectives:

  • Funding honest and positive communications efforts that support MASA and immigrant communities and promote civil discourse.
  • Creating bipartisan community networks to help and defend MASA communities in the face of threats.
  • Challenging infringements on civil rights through litigation, legal services, and legal education.

Since we began supporting these projects in June of 2017, our grantees have made significant progress building relationships across the field and providing legal support. For example:

There is a tension inherent in this work. Every day we see headlines that remind us of the profound urgency of supporting organizations working on the front lines of our communities and our courts ensure the safety of targeted communities and to defend the dignity our democracy demands. And yet, we recognize that the work of building resilience and combating hatred is long haul work and that the daily struggles of our grantees are steps in a long road toward a more perfect union. We are grateful for their work and pleased to be able to support it.

Grantees under the Just Inclusive Societies Project include the following:

  • Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus
  • Business Forward Foundation
  • Civic Nation
  • Faith in Public Life
  • Georgetown University: Institute for Constitutional Accountability & Protection
  • Hopewell Fund: Over Zero
  • Human Rights — Vets for American Ideals
  • Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law
  • Movement Law Lab
  • NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
  • National Immigration Law Center
  • Proteus Fund — Security and Rights Collaborative
  • ReThink media
  • The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
  • USCRI — Freedom to Believe
Cover Photo: Protestors assemble to push for racial justice. Photo by Forrest Walker.
Blog

Defending Democracy and the Rule of Law through Accountability and Oversight

/
April 2, 2018

Checks and balances. Separation of powers. Rule of law. Accountability.

These are terms that are thrown around a lot in D.C. But what does upholding these fundamental tenets of our system of government look like in practice? Last year, Democracy Fund embarked on an effort to tackle this difficult question, investing $6 million over the course of two years.

Through our special project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight we aim to defend and strengthen the democratic norms that underpin our system of government. Our democracy is strongest when each branch of government serves as a check on the other to ensure there is a balance of power that allows no single branch to dominate the others.

Governmental watchdogs and other institutions of civic life play a critical role in monitoring our government and holding it accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people. They are engaged in education, advocacy, litigation, research, and other actions that reveal abuses and improve Congress’ ability to conduct oversight. Ultimately their work should lead to increased public demand for action, and more effective checks and balances across the three branches of government.

This special project is an expansion of the critical work we are already doing to improve our institutions. The Governance Program at Democracy Fund has worked for years to strengthen Congress’ capacity to conduct constructive oversight of the executive branch—the type of oversight that helps government better serve the American people. But the current political environment poses new threats to the rule of law and to the system of checks and balances. The question is: Can we protect the rule of law through a constructive approach that brings people together to support the foundation of our system of government? In this partisan moment, can we find bipartisan approaches to protecting democratic norms and holding the government accountable to the American people?

We believe the answer to these questions is “yes.”

We must do all we can to ensure that the structural safeguards of checks and balances established by our Constitution—and the mechanisms that influence and support those safeguards—will work as intended. This holds true regardless of the party that controls the White House, or the two chambers of Congress.

With that in mind, Democracy Fund is investing in a few different areas through this special project. We are working to strengthen the capacity of Congress to engage in effective oversight through watchdogs like the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). Executive branch oversight is a core function of Congress, but congressional capacity to conduct effective oversight has suffered from the same institutional weaknesses—hyper-partisanship, lack of capacity—that have imperiled Congress’ ability to legislate effectively. POGO, along with the Levin Center and the Lugar Center, train congressional staff on both sides of the aisle about how to do effective, bipartisan oversight. That could include working with federal whistleblowers, who are a critical source of information about government wrongdoing. Federal employees who witness waste, fraud, abuse, or who are ordered to engage in actions they believe to be unlawful—and refuse to go along—are a key backstop to ensure accountability. They deserve strong legal protections and representation, which is why we have invested in organizations like the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

Other key elements of accountable government are transparency, and strong ethics rules. We are working to enhance the transparency of government actions and decision-making through our investments in groups like Open the Government and the National Security Archive, and to provide independent fact-checking of government statements on complicated issues through groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. We are likewise supporting organizations like Issue One, who identify and enforce ethics violations, conflicts of interest, and other forms of corruption to ensure government decisions are made for the benefit of the American people—not to enrich a few.

The current climate has shown that we cannot take for granted the rule of law. To strengthen our constitutional system of checks and balances, we are supporting organizations who are working to strengthen our democratic system and prepare for and respond to potential crises, such as the R Street Institute and the Protect Democracy Project.

The fundamental goal of our special project is to ensure that checks and balances, separation of powers, rule of law, and accountability aren’t just Washington buzzwords, but rather, that they remain the principles that form the foundation of our democracy. And if nothing else, we should all be able to agree on that.

Grantees under the Special Project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight Include the Following:

  • Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System — Project DATA
  • Brookings Institution — Lawfare
  • Center for Responsive Politics
  • Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
  • German Marshal Fund — Alliance for Securing Democracy
  • Government Accountability Project
  • Issue One
  • National Security Archive Fund
  • Open the Government
  • Partnership for Public Service
  • Protect Democracy Project
  • R Street Institute
  • The Constitution Project at POGO
  • The Lugar Center
  • The Project on Government Oversight
  • Wayne State University — Levin Center
  • William J. Brennan Center for Justice
Blog

Election Security Preparation for the 2018 Midterms

/
June 28, 2018

Under the leadership its new chairman Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Ranking Member Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), the Senate Rules and Administration Committee hosted a hearing this past week, “Election Security Preparation: A State and Local Perspective.” This is the first hearing since the 2016 election in Senate Rules, the committee with jurisdiction over federal election issues. This hearing was a long-overdue opportunity for state and local election officials and Congress to talk about how they can work together to improve our nation’s election integrity, following the attempts made in 2016 to interfere in the last Presidential election.

In the March 2018 omnibus spending package, states got a boost to help them in these efforts. The omnibus provided $380 million in Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds that states can use for election security improvements. Specifically, legislative report language outlined key categories to help guide state spending activity. “Consistent with the requirements of HAVA, states may use this funding to:

  1. Replace voting equipment that only records a voter’s intent electronically with equipment that utilizes a voter-verified paper record;
  2. Implement a post-election audit system that provides a high-level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally;
  3. Upgrade election-related computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through DHS or similar scans or assessments of existing election systems;
  4. Facilitate cybersecurity training for the state chief election official’s office and local election officials;
  5. Implement established cybersecurity best practices for election systems; and
  6. Fund other activities that will improve the security of elections for federal office.”

These resources are critically important given the evidence noted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and other cybersecurity experts about the foreign attacks on our election infrastructure during the 2016 election. According to the EAC, 66 percent of the funds have been requested as of June 19, and the witnesses testified that the Commission worked very quickly to disburse funds to the states. This is a good start, but there is a need for all states to get in the game. There’s also a good practice to provide greater information about how they will use the funds, and to identify how their actions will create greater security for the 2018 election. For example, Ohio recently outlined the steps the state is taking to build confidence in the system. And several Democracy Fund grantees have resources outlining best practices in cybersecurity for election professionals. The Defending Digital Democracy Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs has its State and Local Election Cybersecurity Playbook and “tabletop exercise” workshops, and the Center for Data and Technology is partnering with the Center for Technology and Civic Life to deliver online cybersecurity trainings for election officials this July.

Beyond 2018, the hearing was a reminder that election officials are constantly planning and looking ahead. As all the witnesses testified, the complexity of threats to our election infrastructure requires ongoing support from the federal government to aid the states—a challenge that Congress should take seriously if they want voters to have confidence and trust in our election system.

Blog

Ensuring Language Access for Minority Voters Relies on a Fair and Accurate Census

Terry Ao Minnis
/
April 17, 2018

​We are a mere two years out from “Census Day” 2020 — April 1, 2020 — and we need all hands on deck to ensure a fair and accurate census. The census is paramount for a multitude of reasons — the data are used to make critical decisions in distributing over $600 billion annually in federal spending, developing legislation, making business decisions, and for federal, state, and local planning. On a more foundational level, the census is a pillar of our democracy. Census data are used to appropriate seats for the U.S. House and in turn, the Presidential electoral college, and in redistricting to redraw lines. The Census has major implications for our federal elections and voter confidence as it is integral to demonstrating the system is fair and representative. It is also vital to language minority voters and their active and meaningful civic engagement.

​While the census strives to get a fair and accurate count of everyone in the country, the reality is that some are missed in census after census. Now, if different communities are missed equally, then the resulting census would still be fair, if not as accurate. Unfortunately, decade after decade we have seen a persistent, disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including people of color, young children, and renters. Thus, when there is a differential undercount in communities of color, voters of color are further marginalized. Rights are unrecognized and unrealized when people are undercounted in these communities.

​Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) are used to make Section 203 determinations under the Voting Rights Act every five years. It dictates which jurisdictions are required to provide language assistance during the voting process. The ACS – an ongoing survey that provides vital socio-economic characteristics on a yearly basis about our nation and its people – allows us to know more about topics including: jobs and occupations, educational attainment, veterans, language ability, and whether people own or rent their homes. While the ACS is conducted separately from the decennial census, an unfair and inaccurate census will negatively skew the ACS. Because the ACS is sent to a sampling of households, the data collected uses a weighting methodology that forces consistency of ACS estimates with official population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. The population estimates are based on the most recent decennial population results (currently, the 2010 census) updated with annual changes in births, deaths, domestic and international migration.

​Since there is a higher risk of an undercount in immigrant and limited English proficient communities, as indicated in the Census Bureau’s own research, language minority communities are more likely to refuse to participate. This lower participation by language minorities could mean missed jurisdictions for Section 203 coverage that should be covered throughout the decade. During the most recent determinations in 2016, a total of 263 political subdivisions nationwide are now covered by Section 203, with a total of 214 political subdivisions in 26 states providing assistance in Spanish, 15 political subdivisions of Alaska providing assistance in an Alaska Native language, 35 political subdivisions in nine states providing assistance in an American Indian language, and 27 political subdivisions in 12 states providing assistance in an Asian language. Inaccurate census data would result in less language assistance across the nation.

Census data are also important for jurisdictions working to comply with their Section 203 obligations. For example, Census data are often one factor taken into consideration in making the determination of the language for written assistance, as well as the languages for oral assistance at the polls. Additionally, jurisdictions can target their language assistance. For example, translated materials and bilingual poll workers can be placed in those polling locations that serve covered language minority voters as opposed to all polling locations. Jurisdictions can look to census data to inform their planning to determine which polling locations should offer language assistance.

​Census data are also important for jurisdictions looking to provide voluntary language assistance to their constituents. For example, Fairfax County, VA decided to voluntarily provide language assistance in Korean in addition to their Section 203 obligations under Spanish and Vietnamese. Recognizing that the county has a growing Korean population, the county looked to Census data which indicated that approximately 35,000 of the million or so county residents spoke Korean at home, with about 55 percent of them not speaking English very well, for confirmation that this was a community that had a significant need for language assistance.

​The Census Bureau continues to face several challenges this decade that have put a fair and accurate census at risk, including funding shortfalls for virtually the entire decade. These funding shortfalls have led the Census Bureau to make tough decisions, like cancelling all on-site field tests in 2017 and curtailing its End-to-End Test in 2018. While the decades-long reduced funding has had consequences, both Congress and the Administration — recognizing the deficiencies in funding to date and the challenges facing the Census — have taken steps to move the Census Bureau in the right direction. Congress recently boosted Census Bureau funding in the recent Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus spending bill, nearly doubling the 2017 funding level and providing $1.13 billion more than the administration’s adjusted request for 2018. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross stated that “an efficient 2020 Census that provides a full, fair and accurate count has been one of [his] highest priorities since being confirmed,” in asking for an increase in funding for the 2020 Census. It is imperative that the 2020 Census gets back on track as an inaccurate count weakens our democracy with just two years to finalize and implement the decennial census. For all these reasons, a fair and accurate census is important for language minority voters and for those who work to protect their voting rights. We can all pitch in and take steps to ensure everyone gets counted when Census Day 2020 arrives!

​Terry Ao Minnis is a Senior Fellow and Consultant at the Democracy Fund where she advises staff on emerging needs and opportunities to improve voting for all—specifically for those who face unique challenges under our current system. Terry currently serves as the Director of the Census and Voting programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and co-chairs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights’ Census Task Force. She received her Juris Doctor, cum laude, from American University Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree in economics at the University of Chicago.

​Follow Terry on Twitter @Tao_Minnis.

Blog

Mapping to Learn: Applying a Systems Lens to Local Journalism

/
March 28, 2016

This week we released a visualization and accompanying narrative that seeks to represent the dynamics facing local news institutions and levels of participation of the public in civic affairs.

Original reporting, informed dialogue, and rigorously argued differences of opinion all support engagement in our democratic processes in communities across the United States. Over the past decade, however, local news outlets have struggled. Audiences and advertisers have gravitated to digital and mobile platforms — and the economics of local news has declined. We are being left with media deserts in locations where coverage once flourished.

At the same time, promising local journalism experiments have cropped up across the country. Foundations and venture capitalists are investing not only in individual outlets, but in tools and models that can cut reporting costs and support civic engagement around breaking topics. How can such promising innovations be seeded widely and cultivated fully? These are the issues that the Democracy Fund’s Engagement Program has been grappling with.

Our Journey

Over the past year, we have consulted dozens of journalists and scholars of media and communications in an ambitious effort to create a map that reveals the many dimensions of local journalism’s disruption.

This process flows from the foundation’s larger commitment to understanding democracy as a complex system. At the core of our process is an extensive process of analysis and graphical mapping of the dynamics facing this space. As Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman explains “a systems map describes the dynamic patterns (or feedback loops) that occur in a system, whether they are vicious or virtuous cycles of behavior and reaction.” It is not, as Joe writes “a network map that describes how different individuals or organizations are connected to one another.”

The process of identifying and vetting such loops has been both long and profoundly iterative. Participants in the initial workshop held in March 2014 sketched some 43 loops representing different dynamics surrounding the failure and success of local news outlets to adequately inform and connect with their communities. Over a series of internal and one-on-one meetings, the Engagement team — Program Associate Paul Waters, Graduate Research Fellow Jessica Mahone, myself, and a dedicated set of fellows and consultants — winnowed the map down to tell a “core story” about key factors and connections.

Like panning for gold, these multiple conversations allowed the team to sift through many different layers of the problem to identify valuable elements. The result is not a picture of the optimal local news environment that we might want, or the debatably better environment we might have once had. Instead, it’s a multi-dimensional model of the intersecting forces that shape the markets, missions, and practices of outlets seeking to provide coverage that can help to drive democratic decisionmaking by both audiences and policymakers around the country.

Where We Are

The current map, which comprises 17 loops, hones in on the powerfully disruptive economic shifts that have unsettled legacy journalism outlets, and the hopeful but still nascent creative efforts to build sustainable digital tools and platforms for reporting and civic dialogue. The map identifies Internet adoption and evolution as the key “input factor” disrupting this system, and pinpoints three key factors central to a healthy local information ecosystem:

  • The shift in audience attention;
  • The relevance, quality, and quantity of state and local journalism; and
  • The engagement of the public in civic affairs.

Several related loops hone in on economic dynamics. Perhaps the most important is the decay in income from advertising as a result of news outlets no longer able to obtain the same rates or deliver the same audience reach they once did. In addition, large digital platforms are more able to capture significant portions of the remaining advertising revenue with increasingly sophisticated targeting technologies. The result these dynamics is that membership and philanthropic support for small to mid-sized news projects is increasingly important as is the role government dollars play in maintaining public broadcasting.

Other factors are at work, however, including the rise of user-generated content, the strength of connections between newsrooms and community members, and the fate of journalism skills in an era of mass newspaper layoffs. The map raises questions such as, can audiences trust reporters to recognize and represent their interests, and uncover corruption without sliding into sensationalism? Will outlets with small slices of the public increase hyper partisanship with narrowly targeted content aimed at reinforcing viewpoints rather than informing?

The map also recognizes the importance of policy decisions around online access and how they have fostered the growth of the Internet over recent decades. All of these dynamics and others are captured in this system map, and each loop is bolstered with research, case studies and both supporting and countervailing evidence.

Overall, we have to recognize that the local public square, which has for decades been sustained by a small number of newspapers, television and radio stations, is in turmoil and though it isn’t clear what will replace what was for decades a stable equilibrium it is very clear that change will be a constant over the upcoming decade.

Looking to the future

Like the dynamics it captures, the map is not static. It is a work in progress, designed to serve as tool for discussion and strategy not just within the foundation, but across the field. With this in mind, the Engagement Program worked with the American Press Institute to convene another room full of news experts, editors and reporters this past October. Many had seen the map more than once in its various iterations; others were “map newbies.” We led the room through each loop—probing for points of confusion or competing interpretations of various factors and connections. For us this was just the first step towards more engagement with communities of experts seeking to better inform and engage the public at the local level in our democracy. Ultimately, we hope this contributes to a stronger shared understanding of the field.

How can you assist?

We recognize that as a relatively small organization we will gain a better understanding of the field by soliciting input from others. We also realize that this is a quickly shifting field and we intend to stay in learning mode as the map evolves. This prompts us to continue to engage with the widest range of people working in the realm of local news and participation: What else does the Democracy Fund need to know or understand to better illuminate the dynamics of local news ecosystems?

If your work relates to local news and participation, we welcome and encourage you to take some time to explore the map and dig into the definitions of the loops, factors, and connections. Help us improve its breadth and accuracy.

Please send us your ideas and feedback by emailing newsmap@democracyfund.org.

 

Blog

A Fresh Look for the Democracy Fund

/
June 22, 2016

After five years of grantmaking and on our second anniversary as an independent foundation, the Democracy Fund has a fresh look and updated program names. We hope these exciting changes offer a clearer and more energetic window into who we are becoming and into our efforts to ensure the American people come first in our democracy.

At the Democracy Fund, we know we are one actor in a field of passionate and committed advocates, experts, peer funders, and elected officials who care about making our democracy work better. We believe that the issues we work on are part of complex systems in which efforts to create change will have ripple effects, some intended and some unexpected. Progress must be made through multi-pronged strategies that reinforce one another and are sustained over time. Like our founder, eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar, we hold a deep respect for the values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Our republic has endured through periods of great stress in the past and we are confident that, with the dedication of committed Americans, our democracy will continue to rise to the occasion, solving the country’s most pressing challenges.

These beliefs, combined with our commitment to building bridges across partisan divides, are represented in our new logo’s forward-moving and alternating red, blue, and gray waves.

 

Democracy Fund logo

To date, we have committed more than $30 million in support of a healthy democracy. Our grantee partners range from the Bipartisan Policy Center and Pew Charitable Trusts to the Congressional Management Foundation, Cato, and Common Cause. We are humbled by the impactful and innovative work of our partners in each of our three core programs. We remain deeply committed to improving Congress, election administration, and local journalism, and today, we’re excited to share the new program names, which more transparently reflect the democratic values we strive promote:

  • Governance and Bipartisan Problem Solving is now Principled Leadership and Effective Governance. Led by Betsy Wright Hawkings, the Governance Program will continue to support approaches that help our elected leaders deliberate, negotiate, and serve the American people.
  • Responsive Politics is now Modern Elections and the Role of Money in Politics. Led by Adam Ambrogi, the Elections Program is working to advance bipartisan solutions that ensure the views and votes of the public come first in our democracy.
  • Informed Participation is now Vibrant Media and the Public Square. Led by Tom Glaisyer, the Public Square Program continues to support innovations and institutions that help people understand and participate in the democratic process.

We hope our new look and language reflect the Democracy Fund you have come to know, and we hope it makes our work as a foundation even more transparent over time.

Report

Pathways To Engagement

Angelica Das, Edited By Jessica Clark
/
April 25, 2017

Journalists are working with their communities in a range of new ways that are reshaping how newsrooms report, publish, and pay the bills. This emerging trend has roots in past journalism industry movements but has taken on unique contours in the digital age. As Democracy Fund seeks to support new tools and practices that can expand community engagement in journalism, we wanted to understand the landscape of the field in more detail. We commissioned this paper to help us create a taxonomy of engagement practices.

In this paper, we have documented a broad spectrum of efforts that help position communities at the center of journalism. Different approaches are outlined, along with useful examples from the field. We don’t seek to prioritize or rank these different models, but rather understand that each meets different newsroom goals and community needs. Together, we refer to the full spectrum of ideas presented here as “Engaged Journalism.”

Engagement is an emergent practice in journalism although it has been explored and debated for years in other fields, which have invested greatly in documenting, training, and supporting innovation and best practices. But as newsrooms grapple with these ideas anew, it is to be expected that the language they use will be a bit of a contested terrain. It is in language where we hash out the core ideas that shape how we operate in the world.

We undertook this study of engagement to clarify our own thinking, not to enforce a uniformity on others. We hope our taxonomy will be of use to the field, but we also see the value in continuing to push and pull on the meanings behind the words we use. We also welcome your feedback on these ideas and look forward to hearing more stories about how engagement is understood in your newsroom and community.

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036