Strategy Archives

Blog

NewsMatch: A unique program to fund news “for the people, with the people”

December 4, 2020

News is a public good.

What does it mean to treat journalism as a public good? Without an informed citizenry able to access the news they need to navigate their lives, actively participate in the public square, and hold their local and national government officials accountable to their public duties, we are at risk of weakening democracy’s most vital participant and protector, the people. That is why NewsMatch has spent five years building a people powered campaign to support and strengthen nonprofit news.

Since 2004, nearly 1,800 communities in the United States have lost their newspapers. This is in addition to communities that have long existed with limited access to news and information that is relevant and useful to navigating local life. Not only are Americans losing their local newspapers, but local tv and radio news programs are also losing the original and substantive investigations these newspapers used to provide. While some news seekers turn toward social media, local tv and local newspapers remain the most utilized sources for news. The ongoing disappearance and deterioration of credible and comprehensive local news limits people’s ability to meet the critical information necessary to make important decisions that impact their everyday lives. It is not enough to simply save what has been lost, we need to rebuild stronger with serving the public as our foundation.

Mission versus money.

As traditional news models break down, there have been entrepreneurial efforts experimenting with business models to find new markets and new audiences. Many of these efforts utilize digital platforms and focus on attracting paying subscribers and advertisers. Yet, people most in need of quality and credible news are the least likely to be able to pay for it (and for what advertisers are trying to sell). They are also often part of communities whose stories and informational priorities need to be better reflected in the news already. Fortunately, there are emerging newsrooms who are increasingly committed to improving representation, inclusion and equity in their news content creation and seeking to transform the industry. But these newsrooms are forced to compete with the bottom-line need to be financially sustainable. NewsMatch seeks to level the playing field through philanthropic matching dollars and in-depth investment in capacity building around fundraising for nonprofit newsrooms.

News for all, not for some.

More and more, the philanthropic world is recognizing the opportunity to protect democracy by supporting rigorous and inclusive journalism. Finding ways to disentangle news generation from news revenue ensures that the media industry won’t just serve the interest and needs of those who can afford to pay for it or pay to influence it. Supporting news organizations committed to inclusive and fact-based news and information might also help to stymie the proliferation of media organizations with nefarious objectives that are filling the media gap in poor communities with news that is often free to the consumer, but also highly partisan, not credible and not independent from political or corporate interests. A public shift from seeing news as a service one pays for solo access to a collective good that benefits us all is an important step toward treating local news like the vital democractic resource it is.

NewsMatch is one strategy.

NewsMatch was created as a strategic way to support quality journalism. It aims to jumpstart small, emerging newsrooms, some serving communities that have been poorly served by mainstream or national media. News for the people, with the people, NewsMatch’s 2020 slogan captures the promise of what newsrooms can become when we recognize the public good it provides and act to protect it.

The NewsMatch annual campaign pools funds nationally to provide participating newsrooms with a matching incentive and tools and training to build its long-term fundraising capacity. Newsmatch is a powerful tool for donors, foundations, and corporations concerned about the future of local and investigative reporting. Since 2016, NewsMatch helped 200+ nonprofit newsrooms across the country raise more than $100 million from hundreds of thousands of people — many of whom were first-time donors to nonprofit news. In 2019, NewsMatch turned $3.7 million in philanthropic investments into $43.5 million in support for local news in just two months, a more than 1200 percent return on investment.

So, how is NewsMatch doing?

So far, so good. Last year, Democracy Fund partnered with the Knight Foundation to commission an evaluation of NewsMatch to see how the campaign was faring on three ambitious goals: 1) to dramatically increase giving to journalism, 2) to strengthen long term fundraising capacity in newsrooms; and 3) to build awareness about journalism’s impact in our democracy. There was ample evidence that the 2019 NewsMatch program met the first goal, with returning organizations securing more donors and donations then the previous year. The second and third goals, which were longer-term in nature, were not yet met, although there was indication of progress toward both goals. Related to the second goal by design, NewsMatch serves a diverse array of nonprofit news organizations ranging from small community-based start-up organizations to national public media outlets. That diversity makes it a necessity to tailor the training and support provided so that it is more relevant to the specific context and challenges each media organization faces. To better provide this added nuance, an investment toward additional administrative support was made to help newsrooms strengthen long-term fundraising capacity. As for the third goal, while this evaluation found some evidence that the general public may not yet be aware of news as something to donate to, part of NewsMatch approach is to help funders and the public begin to see news as vital to our democracy and thus cannot be left solely to market forces.

What can I do?

This post opened with the line local news is a public good. If after reading this you agree, well then, we’re a bit closer to it becoming one. Reimagining the role of the news as a collective good that strengthens and protects democracy moves us beyond futile attempts to patch and reinstitute a flawed industry with a history of neglecting and harming communities of color. There is an opportunity now to set the bar much higher by supporting local news organizations committed to the transformative change necessary to become a news industry that truly serves all people.

If you are an individual interested in donating to support news as a public good, you can find a local media organization by using the search engine NewsMatch provides on their site. If you are a grantmaker, consider becoming a partnering funder.

Lastly, while philanthropic giving is powerful, we recognize that it is just one strategy to treat local news like a public good. Newsrooms serving marginalized communities can struggle to compete for philanthropic dollars as well. While philanthropy is important, it is no replacement for sound local and federal policy. Democracy Fund is also supporting burgeoning media policy efforts to protect local news. We look forward to sharing more about this work in future posts.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Social Media Transparency is Key for Our Democracy

Paul Waters

August 11, 2020

According to the Pew Research Center, one in five Americans rely primarily on social media for their political news and information. This means a small handful of companies have enormous control over what a broad swath of America sees, reads, and hears. Now that the coronavirus has moved even more of our lives online, companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have more influence than ever before. And yet, we know remarkably little about how these social media platforms operate. We don’t know the answers to questions like:

How does information flow across these networks?
Who sees what and when?
How do algorithms drive media consumption?
How are political ads targeted?
Why does hate and abuse proliferate?

Without answers to questions like these, we can’t guard against digital voter suppression, coronavirus misinformation, and the rampant harassment of Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) online. That means we won’t be able to move closer to the open and just democracy we need.

A pattern of resisting oversight

The platforms have strong incentives to remain opaque to public scrutiny. Platforms profit from running ads — some of which are deeply offensive — and by keeping their algorithms secret and hiding data on where ads run they avoid accountability — circumventing advertiser complaints, user protests, and congressional inquiries. Without reliable information on how these massive platforms operate and how their technologies function, there can be no real accountability.

When complaints are raised, the companies frequently deny or make changes behind the scenes. Even when platforms admit something has gone wrong, they claim to fix problems without explaining how, which makes it impossible to verify the effectiveness of the “fix.” Moreover, these fixes are often just small changes that only paper over fundamental problems, while leaving the larger structural flaws intact. This trend has been particularly harmful for BIPOC who already face significant barriers to participation in the public square.

Another way platforms avoid accountability is via legal mechanisms like non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and intellectual property law, including trade secrets, patents, and copyright protections. This allows platforms to keep their algorithms secret, even when those algorithms dictate social outcomes protected under civil rights law.

Platforms have responded to pressure to release data in the past — but the results have fallen far short of what they promised. Following the 2016 election, both Twitter and Facebook announced projects intended to release vast amounts of new data about their operations to researchers. The idea was to provide a higher level of transparency and understanding about the role of these platforms in that election. However, in nearly every case, those transparency efforts languished because the platforms did not release the data they had committed they would provide. Facebook’s reticence to divulge data almost a year after announcing the partnership with the Social Science Research Council is just one example of this type of foot-dragging.

The platforms’ paltry transparency track record demonstrates their failure to self-regulate in the public interest and reinforces the need for active and engaged external watchdogs who can provide oversight.

How watchdog researchers and journalists have persisted despite the obstacles

Without meaningful access to data from the platforms, researchers and journalists have had to reverse engineer experiments that can test how platforms operate and develop elaborate efforts merely to collect their own data about platforms.

Tools like those developed by NYU’s Online Political Transparency Project have become essential. While Facebook created a clearinghouse that was promoted as a tool that would serve as a compendium of all the political ads being posted to the social media platform, NYU’s tool has helped researchers independently verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of Facebook’s archive and spot issues and gaps. As we head into the 2020 election, researchers continue to push for data, as they raise the alarm about significant amounts of mis/disinformation spread through manipulative political groups, advertisers, and media websites.

Watchdog journalists are also hard at work. In 2016, the Wall Street Journal built a side-by-side Facebook feed to examine how liberals and conservatives experience news and information on the platform differently. Journalists with The Markup have been probing Google’s search and email algorithms. ProPublica has been tracking discriminatory advertising practices on Facebook.

Because of efforts like these, we have seen some movement. The recent House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee hearing with CEOs from Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon was evidence of a bipartisan desire to better understand how the human choices and technological code that shape these platforms also shape society. However, the harms these companies and others have caused are not limited to economics and market power alone.

How we’re taking action

At Democracy Fund, we are currently pushing for greater platform transparency and working to protect against the harms of digital voter suppression, coronavirus misinformation, and harassment of BIPOC by:

Funding independent efforts to generate data and research that provides insight regarding the platforms’ algorithms and decision making;
Supporting efforts to protect journalists and researchers in their work to uncover platform harms;
Demanding that platforms provide increased transparency on how their algorithms work and the processes they have in place to prevent human rights and civil rights abuses; and
Supporting advocates involved in campaigns that highlight harms and pressure the companies to change, such as Change the Terms and Stop Hate for Profit.

Demanding transparency and oversight have a strong historical precedent in American media. Having this level of transparency makes a huge difference for Americans — and for our democracy. Political ad files from radio and television broadcasters (which have been available to the public since the 1920s) have been invaluable to journalists reporting on the role of money in elections. They have fueled important research about how broadcasters work to meet community information needs.

The public interest policies in broadcasting have been key to communities of color who have used them to challenge broadcaster licenses at the Federal Communications Commission when they aren’t living up to their commitments. None of these systems are perfect, as many community advocates will tell you, but even this limited combination of transparency and media oversight doesn’t exist on social media platforms.

Tech platforms should make all their ads available in a public archive. They should be required to make continually-updated, timely information available in machine-readable formats via an API or similar means. They should consult public interest experts on standards for the information they disclose, including standardized names and formats, unique IDs, and other elements that make the data accessible for researchers.

Bottomline, we need new policy frameworks to enforce transparency, to give teeth to oversight, and to ensure social media can enable and enhance our democracy. Without it, the open and just democracy we all deserve is at real risk.

Back to Ideas

Blog

How Political Ad Transparency Can Help Fix Democracy’s Cybersecurity Problem

Nancy Watzman

August 7, 2020

Without sufficient transparency and accountability, online platforms have become hotbeds for disinformation that manipulates, maligns, and disenfranchises voters, especially people of color and women. The Online Political Ads Transparency Project is critical to Democracy Fund’s Digital Democracy Initiative’s goal of providing greater transparency and oversight to combat coordinated disinformation campaigns, minimize misinformation, and define and defend civil rights online.

There is nothing new about misinformation, dirty tricks, and voter suppression in the history of democracy. But as political campaigns – like much of the rest of public life – have moved online, so have tactics to subvert election outcomes. Political ads and messaging are micro-targeted at voters who have no idea who is paying to influence them or what their motives might be. Or, as Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy, researchers for the Online Political Ads Transparency Project at New York University’s Center for Cybersecurity, would put it, democracy has a cybersecurity problem.

In May 2018, Edelson and McCoy found a perfect opportunity to study this problem: they decided to look at Facebook’s newly public, searchable archive of political ads. Facebook had released this archive following criticism that it was profiting from political ads while not disclosing information about them to the public. Unlike TV and radio broadcasters, who are required to report political ad buys on television and radio to the Federal Communications Commission, online platforms like Facebook — to this day — are not legally required to do so. But while Facebook’s lack of transparency was technically legal, that doesn’t mean it was right. The democratic process is harmed when Americans don’t know who is attempting to influence them via political ads.

Diving into Facebook’s archive of political ads, Edelson and McCoy scraped information and used the resulting data to publish an analysis that showed that from May 2018 to July 2018, Donald Trump was the largest spender on the platform — a key insight into political influence on Facebook. Unfortunately, Facebook eventually shut down the NYU team’s ability to gather information by scraping — but this was only a temporary setback. Facing mounting pressure from the research community, Facebook soon after created a way for researchers to obtain these data programmatically, via an API interface. This made it simpler to do an ongoing analysis of the ad library corpus, versus a one-time scrape covering a limited time period.

In doing all of this work, the researchers’ goal was to push Facebook to adopt better transparency policies — by presenting them with the evidence of how inadequate their current policies were. But Edelson and McCoy were learning that was an even more difficult task than they had expected.

“When you are battling a traditional cybersecurity problem like spam” explains Edelson, “the honest actors – whether it’s a bank, an insurance company, or something else – have incentives to change their behavior, because their customers will reward them with increased profits. But in this case, online platforms may have a long-term interest in being good citizens, but their short term interest is in making money off of ads and targeted content, precisely the tools the bad actors are gaming. So it’s hard to get them to change.” In other words: social media platforms have competing motivations.

But the team did have one advantage: the power of public pressure. And they uncovered plenty of things that would worry the public. When they conducted a thorough cybersecurity analysis of how well Facebook was adhering to its own policies on political ad disclosure, they found numerous problems. More than half of the advertising pages they studied – representing $37 million of ad spending – lacked proper disclosure of which candidate or organization paid for the ads. Even when names of sponsors were disclosed, the information was sloppy and inconsistent.

They also identified “inauthentic communities” — clusters of pages that appeared to cater to different racial or geographic identity groups that do not adequately disclose how they are connected to each other.

Rather than going straight to the public with this information, Edelson and McCoy reached out to Facebook to share their findings, letting the company know that they planned to present their research publicly in May 2020 at the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. And it did have an impact: in response, Facebook made internal changes that addressed some of these issues.

This was a victory for the researchers, but the work continues and many obstacles and mysteries remain. Sometimes the Facebook API stops working. Sometimes researchers find ads that are clearly political, but are not included in the official ad library. And sometimes the reports that Facebook releases that aggregate ad data don’t match the raw data they’ve collected.

But despite the difficulties, Edelson and McCoy persist. “I’m proud of the fact we’ve moved Facebook on transparency,” says Edelson, “but there is always more work to do. Voters need to know who is targeting them and how — and how much they are spending — to help them make informed decisions when they fill out their ballots.”

In 2020, the researchers are continuing to work on projects aimed at making Facebook and other platforms safer for our democracy. They have launched AdObserver, a browser plugin that allows Facebook users a way to volunteer data on the ads they are seeing. This will yield valuable information on whether ads are missing from the Facebook Ad Library, as well as information on targeting that the social media platform does not make available. And they are creating a new tool that will help civil society organizations – who represent people who often are targeted by such ads – to quickly identify problematic ad campaigns. While there’s no doubt democracy still has a cybersecurity problem, the NYU researchers are working hard to protect it from threats.

Cover Photo: Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy of The Online Political Ads Transparency Project at New York University’s Center for Cybersecurity. Photo Credit: New York University.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Why Democracy Fund is Declaring Independence From Bipartisanship

Joe Goldman

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:

In the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under the law.
That voting is the cornerstone of our democracy.
That constitutional checks and balances and respect for the rule of law are critical to protect against abuses of power.
That a healthy democracy cannot exist without a participatory, vibrant public square, including an independent, free press.
That informed dialogue and principled compromise are essential to governing a large, diverse, and complex society like the United States.
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.

Back to Ideas

Statement

Our commitment to being part of the solution

Joe Goldman

June 3, 2020

Democracy Fund stands in solidarity with our grantees, partners, and those across the nation who are outraged and grieving over the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and so many other Black lives that have been lost or harmed by racism, white supremacy, and police brutality. That includes the victims of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected communities of color.

At Democracy Fund, we believe that a healthy democracy requires that historically targeted communities have power and equal protection under the law. This means police brutality must end, and it means Black communities, social justice organizers, and allies across the country must be able to peaceably assemble to protest another attack on a Black man. These protests should be joined and amplified, not shut down nor met with police aggression. We have to center the experiences of Black people and other marginalized communities as we work to build a more equitable democracy. Many of us need to confront our own privilege to work in solidarity to actively dismantle racism.

Instead of helping us to forge a path forward, our nation’s leaders are threatening to deploy military force against fellow Americans, condoning attacks on journalists, and using social media to stoke division. This is a violation of the very principles of an open and just democracy, and further endangers our nation.

There is significant work to do to protect the lives of Black people to ensure they have power in our democracy. Philanthropy, including Democracy Fund, must do better at attacking the racism and injustice built into our society and institutions — including our own. We are committed to being a part of the solution.

Moving forward, we commit to four things:

Providing more dollars with fewer barriers to support Black-led organizations fighting for social justice and anti-racist policies;
Directing financial support to local newsrooms and Black reporters so that they can keep telling important stories, including those that shed light on injustice and racism;
Using our influence with other philanthropic organizations to improve funding strategies — including our own — that eliminate barriers for Black-led and -supporting organizations to receive resources; and
Working with foundations and donors across the country to find every resource possible to remove barriers and ensure that everyone is able to vote safely in November.

Black Lives Matter,
Joe Goldman

Back to Ideas

Systems Map

Digital Democracy Initiative Core Story

Paul Waters

May 15, 2020

Our democracy is a complex political system made of an intricate web of institutions, interest groups, individual leaders, and citizens that are all connected in countless ways. Every attempt to influence and improve some aspect of this complex system produces a ripple of other reactions. To identify the root causes of problems we want to address, find intervention points, and design strategies to affect positive change, we use a methodology called systems mapping. We create systems maps in collaboration with broad and inclusive sets of stakeholders, and use them to design and then assess our grantmaking strategies. They are intended to provide a shared language, creating new opportunities for dialogue, negotiation, and ideas that can improve the health of our democracy.

This systems map describes how digital tools and technologies have transformed our public square in recent years for better and for worse. The flow of news, information and civic discourse is now largely governed by five major companies: Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and Apple. Following numerous high-profile scandals, the public has grown concerned about issues of discrimination, mis/disinformation, online hate and harassment, lack of transparency, voter suppression, and foreign interference in our elections through the platforms. The platforms’ lackluster response to these crises suggests that we need to build a strong movement to force the platforms to become accountable not just to their shareholders, but to the public.

The map consists of three interlocking loops.

Platform Power & Profitability describes how the platforms have come to dominate digital communications at the expense of the public square’s overall health and transparency.
Discriminatory Targeting lays out the ways in which platform tools have been used to weaken our democracy, spread hateful content and disinformation, and have exacerbated longstanding racial, economic, and gender inequalities.
The Decline of Commercial News shows why and how news publishers have been unable to compete with platforms for attention and profits in the digital age, and what the loss of journalism means for the public square.

Back to Ideas

Blog

How Democracy Fund is Rising to the Challenge of COVID-19

Joe Goldman

April 3, 2020

Last week, Democracy Fund joined with over 400 other grant makers to sign the Council on Foundations’ Pledge: “Philanthropy’s Commitment During COVID-19.” The pledge calls on foundations to respond to this extraordinary moment with extraordinary measures — both in providing resources to new priorities laid bare by the crisis, and by providing new and different support to current grantees.

In what was already a crucial year for our democracy, the pandemic has brought with it new and unique challenges for our institutions and systems of government. We must ensure the election can proceed safely in this new era of social distancing and that legislators can continue to do their work. At a time when myriad abuses of the public’s trust are possible, we must protect civil rights and ensure robust government accountability and oversight, including of the extraordinary funds provided through government stimulus package. To do so, we must also ensure a fragile news media ecosystem can navigate the coming economic downturn. We are rising to the challenge and working to raise and deploy resources to these numerous new, important priorities.

But our efforts to help our community of grantees navigate the current environment are just as pressing. Nonprofits are adjusting to social distancing protocols and remote work. They are navigating uncertain economic waters as a likely recession endangers philanthropic endowments and other revenue streams. And, they bear the weight of supporting their own staff, while, in many cases, lifting up communities at risk in this pandemic.

In this rapidly shifting landscape, Democracy Fund has appreciated hearing from many of our grantees and peers about how best to support our community. Based on your input – and best practices that are already beginning to emerge across philanthropy – Democracy Fund will be taking two immediate steps:

1. Increasing Flexibility Within Current Grant Agreements

In order to increase stability for our grantees and lessen the burden on them at a challenging time, Democracy Fund staff will be working with each grantee to determine the best way to shift the terms of current grant agreements. For grantees who already have a disbursement from Democracy Fund scheduled for later this year, we will accelerate payments to help organizations maintain continuity of operations. We will adjust requirements to postpone, waive, or amend reporting expectations. And, we strive to provide increased flexibility to as many of grantees receiving project grants as possible by converting restricted grants to general operating support or otherwise loosening project restrictions.

2. Rapid Response Funding for Operational Continuity

In addition to providing flexibility within current grant agreements, this week, we launched a rapid response fund of approximately $550,000 to support our smaller grantees who often have the least flexibility in their budgets to respond to unexpected events. These funds will help smaller grantees adjust to remote work needs, maintain operational continuity, and cover other expenses related to adapting to the current public health crisis. With rare exception, all grantees with 2019 organizational operating budgets of less than $1.5M will each receive $10,000. All eligible grantees have been contacted and the funds are already on their way to our partners. We’ve also shared information and resources with grantees about applying to access funds through the Small Business Administration’s Payroll Protection Program.

Preparing For What’s Next

We’re grateful to be able to quickly adjust to support our grantees, but we know the real needs of our partners and of the field are more than Democracy Fund can address alone. In the coming weeks and months, we look forward to continuing to partner with our colleagues at other foundations and throughout philanthropy to explore other ways to support our grantees and the field.

To help protect and energize the field of organizations working to strengthen and defend our political system, Democracy Fund is working closely with current partners to safeguard the economic stability of our shared grantees, as well as leveraging our philanthropic partnerships efforts to encourage new donors to support democracy funding.

While it’s easy to feel that everything has changed in this tumultuous time, we must remain grounded in our shared mission to protect and defend our democracy. It is clearer than ever that we depend on a robust, effective, and accountable system of government. Communities need their elected officials to act with integrity and with the public interest at heart. They require trustworthy, fact-based journalism to inform their choices. And, they must be able to shape their shared future through a safe and legitimate election, no matter the conditions of this pandemic in November. Our grantees and partners are charging ahead with their important work, and Democracy Fund is committed to doing all we can to support them. We hope you will too.

Back to Ideas

Blog

An Open Letter to Our Grantees About COVID-19

Joe Goldman

March 13, 2020

Dear Colleagues:

We know this is an unsettling time as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to progress around the world and throughout the U.S. The health and safety of all of our grantees, partners, and the communities we serve are top concerns for all of us at Democracy Fund. Now more than ever, our country needs champions for a more open and just democracy. We’re committed to doing what we can to continue to support you and your organization during these uncertain times.

We know many of you are facing difficult decisions about canceling or participating in events, transitioning your staff to remote work, and addressing new challenges to our democracy created by this public health crisis. As your partner, we want to assure you that we will be as flexible and helpful as possible as you make these adjustments in the coming weeks and months. Grantees will not be penalized in any way for cancelling events or travel related to grant deliverables, shifting in-person events to online forums, or making other changes to planned work to protect the health and safety of your staff and communities. We also recognize that none of us yet fully understand the ramifications that COVID-19 will have on our collective work. As you continue to evaluate the situation and modify your organization’s strategy, we invite you to reach out to your program officer to discuss any broader shifts to your goals and objectives that may be necessary.

On our end, grant payments will continue to go out as planned and we will be flexible with respect to deadlines around grants proposals and reports to free up your time to focus on your organization’s critical short-term needs. If your organization needs additional assistance as you navigate the uncertainty around the spread of COVID-19 and the accompanying economic challenges, please reach out to us. In the immediate term, we are exploring what technology and tools we could make available to grantees to help them better manage working remotely. If your organization is interested or has other ideas of ways we can be helpful, please let your program officer know.

Thank you for your continued commitment to the important work of strengthening our democracy and for your commitment to the safety and health of your staff, partners, and the communities you serve.

Sincerely,

Joe Goldman
President
Democracy Fund

Additional Resources:

Back to Ideas

Blog

I’m Risk-Averse, But That Doesn’t Mean I Have To Like It

Liz Ruedy

February 3, 2020

I have a confession to make. It’s taken me months to write this blog. On my desktop right now are probably about 10 different Word docs, all named various versions of “decision-making blog.” The irony is not lost on me. I’m writing a blog about decision-making, but when left to my own devices I often struggle with making any. My particular problem is procrastination brought on by risk aversion — when I have to chart a way forward through a complex set of variables, or determine the best choice among a multitude of options, my inclination is to delay. I wait for more information, I’ll second guess myself, I’ll seek out second (and third, and fourth…) opinions.

In some ways, this is what makes me good at my job. As a strategy, evaluation and learning specialist, I’m trained in a certain style of decision-making that includes consulting the relevant evidence base, triangulating my analysis, and deliberately surfacing any potential biases and assumptions. I try to make sure my decisions are thoughtful, informed, and focused on achieving the best possible outcome. But often, this means that my decisions are also not what I’d describe as bold. So while I’m often the one advising people to be more deliberate and methodical in their decision-making, I’m secretly a little envious of people who seem so ready to take those big leaps of faith.

Because the truth is that in the fast-changing spaces in which social change organizations work, my approach to decision-making actually might not be ideal: the evidence might not be sufficient, the outcomes may not be predictable, and the window to act might be too narrow to allow for much analysis and consultation. I’ve long wondered: what does it take to make bolder choices? What does good decision-making look like in uncertain contexts? In such fast-changing and turbulent times, is it okay to say “I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I still think we should do X?” What does it really mean to be more comfortable with risk?

About a year ago, I started working with Ian David Moss on a project about risk-taking, in part to try to answer some of these questions. We wanted to examine some common assumptions about risk-taking and how we can differentiate between “good” and “bad” risk, particularly in uncertain contexts. We ended up writing a paper called “What We Should Talk About When We Talk About Risk,” which explores some ideas for navigating scenarios where the traditional rules of evidence-based decision-making may not apply. Based on the paper, Ian and I identified seven “principles” for decision-making in risky or uncertain contexts:

Be intentional: give proper weight to the decisions that really matter.
Frame decisions: be explicit about what decision is being made, and why.
Recognize complexity: invest in understanding the system to help you improve your predictions.
Navigate uncertainty: be clear about whether new information would change your mind.
Use information: prioritize information that would help you reduce uncertainty.
Right-size analysis: be realistic about the degree to which information will help you reduce uncertainty or change your decision.
Focus on the future: use forecasting to identify potential outcomes, and be explicit about their likelihood.

Of course, none of these principles are a silver bullet for making the right decision, and there are inherent tensions between the principles that calls for balance and calibration depending on the type of decision being made. As we note in the paper, “getting it right” is going to remain an elusive goal – but we can’t let fear of making a bad decision keep us from making the right one, or even any one.

I’ve found myself thinking about these principles a lot when I’m facing a big decision, particularly when I catch myself falling into old habits that delay, but don’t necessarily improve, the decisions I make. Meanwhile, Ian and I have been actively exploring what this means for Democracy Fund’s strategy, impact, and learning practice – and specifically how our decision-making processes can build in more room for complexity, uncertainty, and multiple futures. I hope you find some helpful insights from this paper, and that it might spark some interesting conversations. I’d love to hear what you’re thinking when it comes to good decision-making. Please check out the SSIR webinar that Ian and I are doing on this topic on February 12, or reach out to me on Twitter, @lizruedy.

Back to Ideas

Blog

2019 Reflections and the Journey Ahead

Joe Goldman

December 20, 2019

Traditionally, this season is one of reflection with time to process our progress and lessons learned. Somehow, this year feels different. Perhaps it’s because the usual moments of reflection and holiday cheer are drowned out by the blaring soundtrack of the impeachment process. Or that the newscycle has served as a constant reminder of the work still ahead. Coupled with the intensity and urgency of the current landscape, strategic reflection has been unusually difficult this time of year.

Still, we are barreling toward the end of 2019 and I am thinking about overarching goals for 2020 and all that comes in the years after. I am struck by the weight of the challenges we’ll face in the new year and the tone that it sets for the next decade. At the same time, I am eager to forge ahead with determination into one of the most important election seasons of our lifetimes.

Over the next 11 months, the American people will face a critical choice that will set the course for our country and for our democracy. The election will unfold amidst an unprecedented set of challenges — from an ongoing impeachment process and a vitriolic political environment, to the threat of election interference through misinformation, cyber-security attacks, fearmongering, and suppression. Despite these challenges, the American people remain energized and all signs point to record levels of participation and voter turnout.

If we have learned anything from the unprecedented turnout of the 2018 midterm elections, it is that Americans still believe in the power of their voice and in the importance of our democracy. With that in mind, those of us in the civic sector have a responsibility to do everything we can to ensure our democracy is able to live up to its fundamental ideals.

We must support election administrators to handle record turnout and ensure the integrity of our system. We must combat misinformation and fearmongering from influencing voters’ choices as they head to the polls. We must support efforts to increase voter turnout and protect voting rights to ensure that the electorate is representative of the country. We must stand with leaders dedicated to preserving the rule of law and civil rights, and support the moral courage of those willing to hold leaders accountable. And, we must continue the slow and steady work of rebuilding our government and civic infrastructure so that we are ready for opportunities for democratic renewal.

This, and so much more, is the work that Democracy Fund and our grantees have already engaged in throughout this past year. 2019 has seen numerous important victories and signs of progress that give me faith for the journey ahead. And I know we aren’t in this fight alone, we stand alongside countless others who are also working to ensure that our democracy delivers on its promise to the American people. As the year comes to a close, I want to share a few of Democracy Fund’s 2019 highlights with you.

Ensuring the Integrity of Our Elections

The proper function of our election system is the bedrock of a healthy democracy. That’s why Democracy Fund funds grantees are working to support election officials through training and technical assistance to improve election administration. Grantees in our Election Security portfolio have partnered with election administrators and the Department of Homeland Security to provide resources and train officials in more than 20 states to respond to cyber incidents. And Democracy Fund Voice, our affiliated 501(c)(4) organization, helped secure an additional $425 million in federal funding for election security while helping states and territories implement cyber security improvements.

Understanding the Electorate

For many, the results of the 2016 election demonstrated that the tools commonly used to understand the American electorate were insufficient. Building on the success of our Voter Study Group, Democracy Fund launched Nationscape, a new public opinion project done in partnership with researchers from UCLA. This innovative study is one of the largest public opinion projects ever conducted — interviewing more than 6,000 Americans weekly and roughly 500,000 over the course of the election. Its unparalleled size and unique experiments provide a distinctive window into Americans’ opinions and priorities — allowing us to track changes over time as well discover differences between demographic and geographic groups too small to analyze (and often go overlooked) with traditional surveys. You can expect to see its findings published regularly through USA Today — the project’s media partner — and on the Nationscape website. Nationscape goes beyond horse race polls in battleground states and gets to the real issues that are driving voters and their decisions.

Standing with Historically Marginalized Communities

Democracy Fund proudly supports grantees working to protect the rights of immigrants and to empower marginalized communities in the public square, particularly when our country’s commitment to pluralism appears increasingly up for debate. This year, the National Immigration Law Center represented plaintiffs before the Supreme Court to combat the elimination of DACA. Our grantees Protect Democracy and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center worked together to win a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from implementing rule changes that would make it more challenging for eligible lawful permanent residents to apply for citizenship and immigration benefits.

Improving Voting Access And Protecting Voting Rights

Over the past decade we’ve seen a resurgence in local and state-level policies and legislative tactics to curb voting access. The stakes of the 2020 election make such attacks on voting rights more likely. This year, the board of directors for Democracy Fund Voice committed nearly $3 million towards a special project to defend voting rights. Together with our ongoing commitment to promoting pro-voter reforms, this work represents a significant new investment to ensure all Americans, particularly historically disenfranchised communities, are assured their right to vote.

Grantees in this portfolio had significant wins this year in making our elections more accessible to all eligible Americans. As just one example, the Texas Civil Rights Project helped defeat Bill SB9, which would have made voting substantially harder for thousands of Texans — elevating the penalty for honest mistakes to a felony offense. Our grantee Common Cause Education Fund has been another leader in this space this year, as they led discovery and litigation emerging from the release of the Hofeller Files, a political consultant’s archives that explicitly demonstrate the illegal use of race to drive election policy. Their work will have far-reaching implications for the democracy reform and voting rights community for years to come.

Meanwhile, state-level reforms to provide voters with more options and ease in the process has also advanced with 11 states modernizing election systems through adopting Automatic Voter Registration, Online Voter Registration, and by joining the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) in 2019. Additionally, five states have increased their compliance with Motor Voter laws through strategic partnerships and litigation efforts supported by our grantees. As a result of AVR adoption and Motor Voter litigation, the percentage of voter registrations received nationwide at DMVs rose from 33 to 45 percent — or 35 million Americans — of total registrations between 2016 and 2018.

Protecting the Rule of Law

The health of our democracy relies on a government accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people it represents. It depends on an understanding that government decisions are based on laws, rules, and the best interests of all Americans — not the political or personal advantage of those charged with executing them.

With the whiplash speed of each news cycle, it’s hard to believe it was only in April that the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election concluded its work. Throughout the investigation, many grantees including the Project On Government Oversight and Protect Democracy, worked tirelessly to protect its independence and ensure the special counsel investigation would be able to reach its conclusion. Once the report was released, grantees helped raise public awareness of its astonishing findings through creative and engaging mechanisms such as Lawfare’s top-rated podcast, “The Report.”

As the impeachment process has unfolded, the work of many of our grantees has helped ensure this historical process is carried out in a manner consistent with our Constitution, democratic values, and with full appreciation for justice and truth telling. In fact, the Government Accountability Project’s longstanding work to protect the rights of whistleblowers has been a mainstay well before the impeachment process. Specifically in this era when constitutional discourse tends to be politically polarized, many of our grantees offer vital education on the Constitution and its protections — like the proper use of emergency powers or the protection of government whistleblowers — and have deployed strategies in real time to ensure accuracy in public reporting.

Supporting Press Freedom

An increasing number of political attacks and strategic legal threats by those who want to silence the press continue to buffet journalists. From Twitter to town halls across America, our grantees are working to stand up for the First Amendment. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press launched a public awareness campaign to emphasize the importance of protecting press freedom. This year, we also worked closely with partner funders to launch a new fund to support First Amendment legal clinics who provide pro-bono legal capacity for local newsrooms. Through these and other tactics, we aim to rebuild the infrastructure for press freedom at a time when the media is increasingly in the cross-hairs of our political debate.

Rebuilding Government and Civic Infrastructure

While much of our portfolio responds to urgent needs relating to the 2020 election, we know resolving our democratic crisis is a long-term project. This work we’re supporting will help to create a more functional government and rebuild our civic infrastructure and fabric.

In particular, the collapse of commercial media has meant that many across the country are underserved by trustworthy news that accurately reflects their community. This year, Democracy Fund became a founding partner in several new efforts to rebuild local news. Borealis Philanthropy’s Racial Equity in Journalism Fund seeks to strengthen the capacity and sustainability of news organizations led by people of color and increase civic engagement for communities of color. We also provided funding to the American Journalism Project, a new, nonpartisan venture philanthropy organization dedicated to local news which announced its first grants to 11 nonprofits just a few weeks ago. And, we continued our successful NewsMatch campaign, which this year exceeded fundraising goals to provide matching funds to nearly 200 newsrooms in 44 states.

Efforts to rebuild are also bearing fruit in Congress despite the rancor of the impeachment process. In January, the new Congress established the first congressional reform committee in more than a quarter century after years of diligent effort by grantees funded by both Democracy Fund and Democracy Fund Voice. The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, which issued nearly 30 recommendations to ensure Congress is an effective 21st Century workplace, has been supported by grantees like Bipartisan Policy Center, R Street Institute, Demand Progress Education Fund, Congressional Management Foundation, and many other organizations—providing regular technical expertise, testimony, and counsel to the committee throughout its deliberations. Together with new House rules, Legislative Branch appropriations bills, and other reforms, the Committee provides hope for a renewal of congressional function. We look forward to what lies ahead for the Committee’s continued work in 2020.

Combating Misinformation and Fearmongering

In 2020, we can expect to see the online misinformation tactics employed in 2016 to continue to evolve and spread in an attempt to influence how voters shape their decisions at the polls in 2020. Bold leadership from all social media platforms is necessary to strengthen our digital public square and preserve a healthy democracy. Moving forward, it is imperative that these companies exhibit more transparency, address misinformation, and end racially biased algorithms.

In 2019, Democracy Fund and its grantees, like Change the Terms, helped build and expand the coalitions of organizers, lawyers, and scholars needed to track these information campaigns and push back on platform inaction. Our efforts have and will continue to focus on the effects of targeted misinformation on women and people of color as well as studying political ads as a vector for efforts to harass and mislead.

Encouraging Others to Join the Fight

Finally, Democracy Fund increased our efforts to rally new philanthropic support towards a healthy democracy in 2019. Recognizing that the 2020 election may draw new philanthropic champions into the fight, our new team supporting these efforts will expand our efforts to build new capacity for the field through educational events, publications, and individual philanthropic advising.

As we look towards next year, philanthropy can do more to fight for the protection of our democracy by focusing on four priorities:

Ensure that the 2020 electorate represents the American people through voter education and mobilization, and by protecting the right to vote;
Ensure that our system is not compromised by supporting the smooth administration of our election and election security efforts;
Ensure that misinformation and fearmongering doesn’t sway voters and further divide this country; and
Continue to prepare for the opportunities and threats that may come next.

When Pierre Omidyar and I began thinking about how his philanthropy could be leveraged to strengthen our democracy, we had no idea American democracy would soon be entering this period of crisis — but I now realize Democracy Fund was built for this moment. Over the past five years, our strategies have responded to emerging threats, and we’ve invested more than $150 million towards improving the health of our democratic institutions and protecting the values we hold dear. As we enter 2020, we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and give it everything we have so we can end the year with absolutely no regrets.