Strategy Archives

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.

Back to Ideas

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.

Back to Ideas

Blog

When the Evidence Isn’t Evident: Why Are Some Kinds of Impact So Hard to Measure?

Liz Ruedy

August 29, 2019

A few months ago, I proposed that a lot of work in the democracy sector, and social change in general, can be captured in six distinct “impact models.” At Democracy Fund, these models have lent new nuance to a perpetual question: how do we measure the impact of democracy work? We understand that there’s a big difference between impact and no impact, and that we shouldn’t hide behind “impact is hard to measure” to avoid admitting when we’re simply not achieving it. But while I wish there was a methodological silver bullet to measure democratic change, the truth is that it can be hard to measure some impacts using specific evidence within a specific period of time. In other words, for some types of impact, the evidence is less, well, evident.

Looking back on evaluations that I’ve done, I can think of a number of instances where there was clear, objective evidence of impact from a transformative model: a new law passed, voter turnout increased. But I’ve struggled to find evidence of impact from preventative models: government overreach that was constrained, or civil rights abuses that were prevented.

I think the reason for this is actually pretty simple: what differentiates the impact models from each other also affects how likely they will be to result in “evident” impact – that is, impact that can be measured with specific evidence and in a specified time period. When we decide how to intervene in a system, we make two basic choices. The first is whether we’re looking for short-term or long-term change: does the intervention address specific, emergent threats or opportunities, or are those threats and opportunities more long-term and/or evolving? The second choice is whether the strategy is intended to disrupt the system or to make it more resilient: is the intervention responding to a deficiency or inefficiency in the system that needs to be changed, or is the intervention seeking to protect a system from threats or decline?

These choices also have implications for how “evident” the resulting impact will be. Disruptive interventions are more likely to yield evidence of impact because it’s easier to pinpoint how and why things change than how and why they remain stable. And because they address timebound threats or opportunities, short-term interventions are more likely to yield evidence of impact in a specific timeframe. So it follows that short-term disruptive models would be most likely to yield evident impact, while long-term resilient models would be the least likely, and short-term resilient and long-term disruptive models would fall somewhere in the middle.

In the framework below, I have attempted to map the impact models across these two dimensions (type of change and timeframe). Based on where they are located on the map, I’d offer the following conclusions:

Transformative and proactive models that leverage sudden openings to disrupt systems, are most likely to yield evident impact.
Incremental transformative, palliative and preventative models that focus on long-term resilience of systems are least likely to do so.
Stabilizing and preventative models that defend against threats by focusing on short-term resilience may yield some evident impact, but the full scope of that impact (including threats that were contained or thwarted) may be less evident.
Opportunistic models that invest in long-term disruption to achieve systems change, may produce some evident impact, but that’s dependent on the timeframe for a breakthrough.

I realize that doesn’t really answer the question of how to measure the impact of these models, particularly when the models are on the less evident end of the spectrum. But I think it prompts a different, and perhaps more important, question: if we accept the premise that some models of democracy work can have impact even if that impact isn’t evident, can we still make sound, evidence-based decisions about them?

Navigating complex systems is rife with uncertainty, and collecting relevant and meaningful evidence is part of how we mitigate the risk of that uncertainty. So pursuing an impact model that will leave us flying blind due to a lack of evidence might seem unacceptably risky. For example, if we know that we’re working toward palliative or preventative impact through long-term resilience, how do we mitigate the risk of a “boiling frog” scenario, in which the system’s lack of progress and/or slow decline eventually becomes untenable? And how do we know whether we’re confusing the “strategic patience” required for a long-term, disruptive intervention with a “sunk cost bias” that makes us hold on to a losing proposition? And even if we’re able to observe the impact of a short-term, disruptive intervention, how do we make sure we’re also capturing evidence of unanticipated, negative results?

But if we stick with the “safer” models – those that promise clear evidence of impact in a defined period of time – we may be left with a false sense of certainty about whether we’re pursuing the most effective and relevant solutions, or avoid tackling the thornier, longer-term challenges altogether. So lately I’ve been focused less on “how can we measure the impact of democracy work” and more on “what evidence do we need to be confident in our strategic choices?” Because now more than ever, democracy work requires courage and creativity, and I want to build an evidence-based evaluation and learning practice here at Democracy Fund that recognizes that. Of course there’s a big difference between impact and no impact, and of course we shouldn’t hide behind “impact is hard to measure” to avoid admitting when we’re simply not achieving it. But we also need to acknowledge that there’s a big difference between the easy wins and the risky plays, and we can’t hide behind “the impact will be hard to measure” to avoid tackling the big challenges. Our current political moment demands no less.

Back to Ideas

Blog

As We Wait for Attorney General Barr to Release the Mueller Report, What Foundations Should Do

Joe Goldman

April 12, 2019

Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report — and anticipation for the report itself — have captivated the interest of the American people and a divided Congress, with jubilation from the president’s supporters and disappointment from his critics.

But the success of the special counsel’s investigation should not be measured by those whose political interests are best served. Rather, its completion should go down in history as a victory for the rule of law — that is, as long as the full report and supporting documents are released to the public.

Congress and the American people must have the opportunity to understand the truth of what happened to be in a better position both to protect future elections and to restore faith in our democratic norms.

Foundations are in a unique position to pave the way forward by investing in causes that further both of these goals.

Integrity of the Ballot Box

There are two core priorities philanthropy can support to protect the tenets of our democracy.

First, we must protect the integrity of our elections. The health of our democracy requires public trust in our electoral systems. The Mueller investigation — both through its current indictments and what will presumably be laid out in the report — should help us get to the bottom of how a foreign power interfered with the 2016 election.

Thanks to the investigators’ efforts, we will have the product of more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, 13 requests of foreign governments, and approximately 500 interviews with witnesses to learn from.

The American public must demand to see the report so we can identify opportunities to bolster our election system. This would allow foundations to invest in work that promotes election modernization, development of data-driven policies, and advancements in new technologies that help reduce barriers to voting. In addition, we need to work with nonprofits seeking to strategically provide secretaries of state and local election boards with the resources to maintain the system’s integrity. Without the partisan distraction of alleged collusion, leaders from both parties can get serious about protecting our democracy from manipulation.

An Independent Justice System

Second, we must protect the rule of law and the independence of our justice system. It is easy to forget that months ago, it was unclear whether the special counsel would be allowed to complete his investigation. We should all be grateful for efforts made over the past two years to protect the independence of the investigation, despite unrelenting pressure from the president and his allies.

Once the report is provided to Congress, it will have its own constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight, thoroughly investigate the underlying evidence, and consider appropriate policies for the future. The attorney general’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed a crime by obstructing justice is not the end of the matter. Only by digging into the facts can the public be sure justice has been served.

New York State’s Inquiry

Foundation leaders also must defend continuing investigations by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere to ensure they are able to complete their work without interference. These investigations, equally representative of the rule of law at work, are looking into deeply important questions related to the integrity of our government — including potential conflicts of interest. They must be allowed to continue unimpeded.

For philanthropy, investing in nonprofit work that protects this oversight is a crucial way to protect our democracy. Remember that Robert Mueller’s 22-month investigation convicted five associates of the president’s and indicted 34 people on nearly 200 criminal charges. The special counsel’s job was not to attack or convict Donald Trump. It was to uncover the truth and ensure justice is done. The special counsel has been able to complete his investigation, and by working together to support and galvanize programs and organizations that uphold our constitutional norms, we can still achieve our goal of a strengthened, vibrant democracy.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Supporting Independent Journalists and Nonprofit Newsrooms in a Time of Unprecedented Threats

Estizer Smith

March 25, 2019

Journalists are being buffeted by growing political attacks and legal threats from powerful companies, political leaders and individuals at a moment when their capacity to fight those battles is greatly diminished. In a 2016 survey, the Knight Foundation found that a majority of editors believe financial pressures on newsrooms have left publishers less prepared and less able to go to court to preserve First Amendment freedoms. Nowhere is this more true than amongst struggling local legacy press, emerging nonprofit newsrooms and independent media makers.

The challenges that small newsrooms face were recently thrown into stark relief by Jon Ralston, the founder of The Nevada Independent, when he described why he chose not to publish an article which included credible allegations of misconduct at the Las Vegas Review-Journal (the article was subsequently published by the Columbia Journalism Review). Facing threats of legal action and the prohibitive cost of prolonged litigation, Ralston had to choose between risking the existence of his fledgling organization and the livelihoods of his staff, or not publishing a well-researched and well-sourced piece that was credible. He had no doubts about the validity of the reporting, but the cost of defending the reporting could have bankrupted his organization.

These sorts of challenges and choices are a critical part of how we must understand press freedom today. No journalist was bloodied or arrested. There was never a court battle. But as the landscape of our press changes, these sorts of strategic legal threats are an increasingly powerful tool for those who want to silence the press. We must embrace a modern conception of freedom of the press that recognizes a more encompassing set of challenges and imagines a new range of solutions. Though they are hard to measure, things like self-censorship as a result of economic concerns and the harassment of journalists—both in person and online—are growing threats to the public’s right to know.

The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker accounts for arrests, physical attacks, border stops, and subpoenas, but it is often hard to quantify instances of online harassment and threats to journalists that are frequently as insidious. In an attempt at remedying a part of this, the International Women’s Media Foundation partnered with Troll Busters to publish a report on the impact of attacks and harassment on female journalists. In that report, 63 percent of respondents indicated they had been threatened or harassed online, 58 percent indicated they’d been threatened or harassed in person, and nearly 30 percent have considered leaving the profession as a result.

As the threats to journalists change, so too does the public’s understanding of what is at stake. While we know the threats to journalists and attacks on freedom of the press are real and deeply concerning, polling we funded in 2017 showed that although 95 percent of registered voters believe that freedom of the press is important, 52 percent do not perceive it as being under threat.

Democracy Fund is committed to supporting independent journalists and nonprofit newsrooms through a variety of efforts, from expanding community engagement to rebuilding sustainable business models. We know the challenges are nuanced, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Our hope is to help provide newsrooms with the resources needed to both report the truth confidently, without fear of being sued into financial ruin, and to help ensure that all journalists facing harassment have access to the resources necessary to recover and take care of themselves and their families.

Over the past two years, we have invested in organizations that defend and advocate for the rights of journalists and newsrooms at every level. For example:

Legal Defense

Knight Institute for the First Amendment: The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University works to defend and strengthen the freedoms of speech and the press in the digital age through strategic litigation, research, and public education. Its aim is to promote a system of free expression that is open and inclusive, that broadens and elevates public discourse, and that fosters creativity, accountability, and effective self-government
Media Freedom and Information Access Legal Clinic at Yale Law School: The Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale University Law School is dedicated to increasing government transparency, defending the essential work of news gatherers, and protecting freedom of expression by providing pro bono legal services and developing policy initiatives.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press works to protect the right to gather and distribute news, keep government accountable by ensuring access to public records, and to preserve the principles of free speech and unfettered press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Student Press Law Center: The Student Press Law Center works at the intersection of law, journalism and education to promote, support and defend the First Amendment rights of student journalists and their advisers at the high school and college level. The SPLC provides information, training and legal assistance at no charge to student journalists and the educators who work with them.

Advocacy

Reporters Without Borders North America: Reporters Without Borders North America seeks to raise awareness and involve Americans in preserving freedom of information, as well as monitor and take action to prevent press freedom violations in the United States, Canada, and the English-speaking Caribbean. They raise awareness on the current climate for press freedom and mobilize other partners, the US government, the UN, and American citizens who want to support freedom of the press and defend journalism.

Engagement

PEN America: PEN America’s Press Freedom Incentive Fund supports PEN America members and their allies to mobilize their communities around press freedom. During its pilot 2017-2018 year, this Fund supported initiatives in more than 20 cities and regions—in places like Detroit, Birmingham, and Denver—to build new local constituencies ready to defend press freedom.

These grants and others have and will continue to provide the traditional legal foundation for our press freedom work. However, we know they alone will not fix the broader systemic issues affecting newsrooms. They do not address the field’s need to protect itself from litigation, and they do not address the personal harassment and threats that individual journalists—particularly women and people of color—endure every day. Given that knowledge, we have been working to think bigger, and leading efforts to broaden the safety and insurance infrastructures that support newsrooms and journalists in 2019.

Three areas Democracy Fund is focusing on this year are:

Legal Clinics

We are working with partners across philanthropy to find a new way to empower a network of university-affiliated legal clinics that focus on the first amendment and media access to more directly serve newsrooms and journalists in their communities. We believe a robust network of legal clinics with increased capacity to provide direct services to journalists can create a strong new force for First Amendment litigation and legal advice.

Insurance Infrastructure

We are exploring the development of a new option for libel and defamation insurance that is affordable and serves nonprofit newsrooms specifically. We believe that the accessibility of insurance is key to a newsroom’s ability to publish rigorously sourced stories that hold those in power accountable, and we believe philanthropy can play a role in helping the field bridge the gap between need and access.

Harassment and Safety

Finally, we are starting new work around supporting journalists who face online harassment and threats to their physical safety, with an emphasis on women and people of color. A press that regularly sees its journalists self-censoring out of fear, or, in the worst cases, being harassed out of the field altogether is not free.

A modern conception of a free and independent press in the United States must be for all journalists, not only those with resources to afford legal fees and in-house counsel. It must acknowledge the economic challenges of the changing media landscape. It must be responsive to the challenges of the networked society, and engage meaningfully with the public to gain their trust and their support. Lastly, it must support journalists who suffer or face harassment as a result of their public facing work. Fundamentally, this modern conception must recognize that threats to a free press are nuanced and often not as public as one might believe.

In partnership with many others in the field, we are taking a multi-layered approach to addressing the myriad, complex challenges facing the free and independent press.We believe that this work can help us move in the right direction, and we will continue to learn and iterate throughout the year.

Back to Ideas

Blog

New Rules and Select Committee Create Opportunity for a More Effective Congress

Chris Nehls

January 14, 2019

Last week, the congressional reform community scored some major wins: new rules in the House of Representatives to support ethics and transparency, and the creation of a Select Committee with real potential to promote further reforms.

New Rules Lay the Foundation for New Results

The set of rules that the House of Representatives adopts each Congress often sets the tone for the next two years of legislating. Judging from the rules the House adopted in the first few days of this session, the 116th Congress is positioning itself to aggressively address challenges to its legislative capacity.

Current House rules tilt control of the chamber in ways that make it much harder for members to find bipartisan consensus on key problems that voters sent them to Washington to tackle. The select committee will examine ways that changes to how committees operate and how bills proceed to final passage can empower individual members to inject their expertise in the process and negotiate across the aisle. The Congressional Institute and Bipartisan Policy Center Action (a grantee of our sister organization, Democracy Fund Voice) have explored extensively what such changes could look like.

New Committee Promises Change and Accountability

The House overwhelmingly approved the creation of a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress in a remarkable bipartisan vote of 418-12. This committee, to be chaired by Rep. Derek Kilmer of Washington, will suggest changes to House rules and procedures to encourage more bipartisan cooperation on bills and allow members to have more of an impact on the legislative process. It will also look into how Congress can adopt better workplace technology to become more innovative and examine challenges to recruiting and retaining a diverse and highly talented workforce. Membership on the committee will be split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

Building Congressional Staff Capacity

Although changes to procedural rules may open new avenues for bipartisan legislation, the effects of these reforms will be limited as long as the working conditions, capacity, and resources of congressional staff remain stagnant. Fortunately, the broad mandate of the Select Committee allows it to address these foundational issues as well. As Democracy Fund grantees have highlighted, the level of support the institution provides its most essential personnel has reached crisis status. In a 2017 Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) survey, only 6 percent of congressional senior staff said they were “very satisfied” with the technological infrastructure of the Congress in supporting members’ duties and only 15 percent were very satisfied with the level of knowledge, skills, and abilities of fellow staff.

Our grantees like the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), the Legislative Branch Working Group, and Demand Progress have demonstrated how low pay, inadequate professional development opportunities, and high turnover can lead harried staff to rely increasingly on the perspectives of lobbyists and advocacy groups to inform legislation. Demand Progress, Lincoln Network, and TechCongress have noted that Congress suffers from a lack of staff with scientific and technical expertise—which might amount to just a handful of employees—to make sense of highly complex policy areas touching on nearly every aspect of American society. OpenGov Foundation and Lincoln Network, meanwhile, have explored how the information technology and digital communications systems serving congressional offices are inadequate for the world’s most powerful legislative body.

As the Select Committee begins its work, its members can rely on Democracy Fund grantees for impartial expert information on the state of congressional legislative capacity and ideas for modernizing the institution. Lincoln Network and Demand Progress, for example, have teamed up with a bipartisan coalition of civil society organizations, think-tanks, and academic experts to launch Future Congress, a resource hub to help improve the institution’s understanding of science and technology.

Fostering a Congress That Looks More Like America

The rules package also created a new Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which will develop and implement a plan to address Congress’ long-standing challenge of recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce, especially among senior staff. As Democracy Fund grantee the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies recently demonstrated, less than 14 percent of top-level congressional staff are people of color. This lack of diversity presents an urgent legislative capacity issue, as Congress lacks staff perspectives that reflect the demographic composition of the nation.

The Office of Diversity and Inclusion can look to the Staff Up Congress initiative, a project of the Joint Center and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, for best practices in developing a pipeline of diverse candidates and hiring and promoting in an inclusive manner. The Joint Center is holding the freshman class of the 116th Congress accountable by tracking new hires of staff of color to senior positions.

The Select Committee and the Office of Diversity and Inclusion are just two aspects of a broader package of reforms that will strengthen ethical and transparent conduct of House members. The rules package also establishes a whistleblower office for congressional staff, strengthens institutional support for ethics investigations of members, and forces members to pay out of their own pocket for employment discrimination lawsuits.

Change in Washington requires patience and preparation to be ready to seize opportunities for reform when they arise. The rules reform package validates our strategy of long-term investment in organizations that provide a vision of what a modern Congress should be. In partnership with congressional stakeholders, those organizations are poised to begin a historic undertaking in the new Congress, strengthening its ability to fulfill its constitutional obligations and restoring public trust in the institution.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Not Just Another Election Year: Reflections on Defending Democracy in 2018

Joe Goldman

December 20, 2018

In July, I published an open letter to tell you about the numerous ways our organization stood up in this time of crisis. Since then, Democracy Fund and our grantees have continued to garner important successes in bolstering the guardrails of our democracy.

Nowhere was this more on display in 2018 than during the midterm election. Millions of Americans from across the political spectrum engaged in the electoral process as volunteers, candidates, and voters for the first time. Record-breaking turnout resulted in a Congress that is more reflective of America than ever before. This surge of enthusiasm for our democracy was inspiring and reenergized my dedication to Democracy Fund’s core mission.

Dozens of Democracy Fund grantees played important roles in supporting this groundswell. I am honored that we helped enable their success. I’d like to take this opportunity to share just a few of their stories.

Ensuring the integrity of our electoral process and systems

Razor-thin margins and recounts in numerous races this November brought significant public scrutiny to election officials and highlighted the importance of well-resourced election administration. This year alone, our grantees’ work resulted in the modernization of nine states’ voter registration systems and pressured at least five states to comply with the National Voter Registration Act.

On the important issue of election security, grantees such as the Defending Digital Democracy Project equipped hundreds of jurisdictions across the nation with best practices and resources to meaningfully respond to cyber threats. I’m particularly proud of the contribution of Democracy Fund Voice staff and grantees in ensuring the congressional appropriation of $380 million for election security that was awarded in grants to all 50 states and multiple territories.

Defending voter access

When voter access was put in jeopardy, our grantees fought to protect the rights of voters in some of the most-watched states in the midterm elections. Demos helped protect the language access rights of Spanish speakers in Florida. The Campaign Legal Center sued to defend the voting rights of Native Americans in North Dakota and played a key role in efforts to combat the controversial measures implemented in Georgia by then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Common Cause provided thousands of volunteers to support election protection and strategies to alert the public if voters had problems at the polls. The Texas Civil Rights Project won expanded early voting access for Texas State University students and kept nine polling locations in Harris County open for an extra hour after they opened late on election day.

Engaging and informing voters

Robust and fair elections systems are a crucial starting place for successful elections, but so too is an engaged and informed public. Millions of voters used tools built by Democracy Fund grantees to register to vote, identify their polling locations, and access other important information about the election. Democracy Works’ API powers the voter registration and voter outreach efforts of Facebook, Google, and Twitter, among others – over 3.5 million people received help registering to vote in 2018. Meanwhile, Democracy Fund partnered with Nonprofit Vote and dozens of others to implement the most successful National Voter Registration Day ever, with more than 800,000 Americans registering to vote on September 25th alone.

Throughout the election season, grantees in our Public Square portfolio played an important role in keeping the public informed about election systems, the candidates, and campaigns. Hundreds of local newsrooms supported by Democracy Fund helped prepare and educate voters for the decisions before them. Our North Carolina Local News Lab helped spark an exciting collaboration between Duke University, Politifact, the University of North Carolina, and McClatchy newspapers to publish over a dozen fact-checking articles on local and state races, including a series on the North Carolina constitutional amendments. The Center for Public Integrity undertook a fascinating effort to track the influence of money in races across the country. And ProPublica’s Electionland has quickly become one of the most important journalistic collaborations to track and report on election administration in the country. Their reporting on misinformation and political ads on social media platforms such as Facebook were particularly noteworthy.

In these ways—and so many more—Democracy Fund’s grantees and partners helped shape what may well be a watershed election in our history.

Preparing to govern

With the midterms behind us, Congress is set to receive a significant influx of new members. Many grantees in our Governance program are helping them get off on the right foot through orientations, trainings, and other resources. A record number of women and people of color will hold seats in the 116th Congress, and Democracy Fund has provided additional funding this year to the Women’s Congressional Policy Institute to help these members thrive. The Staff Up Congress initiative, meanwhile, is facilitating the recruitment and placement of members of underrepresented groups for senior congressional staff positions.

With such a large number of first-time legislators set to join the institution, it is all the more important that members of Congress have the resources necessary to manage effective legislative offices. That’s why I’m particularly pleased that so many of the priorities of Democracy Fund Voice and its grantees passed through the FY2019 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. This includes new resources for the Congressional Research Service and GAO, funding for cybersecurity and tech improvements, and the first significant new funding for member office capacity in Congress in a decade.

Holding government accountable

Our government accountability and investigative journalism grantees have consistently had a hand in some of the key political issues of the year, informing the public and applying pressure where ethical and legal breaches among government actors have been suspected.

Our grantees filed more than 3,000 FOIA requests and dozens of FOIA lawsuits, including Lawfare’s successful effort to secure the release of more than 100 FBI emails that contradicted the White House narrative that Director James Comey had lost Bureau support before his firing.

ProPublica’s heart-wrenching reporting on the family separation crisis played a key role in rallying public opposition to the administration’s policies. And the Project On Government Oversight and OpenTheGovernment uncovered documents showing that DHS officials signed off on policies that would lead to family separation and then told Congress there was no such policy.

Protect Democracy Project is looking ahead to a moment of democratic renewal, laying out an extensive list of reforms to strengthen Congress’ role as the first branch and to rein in executive branch abuses.

Meanwhile, when the Attorney General was forced to resign, we helped lead the philanthropic sector in defending the rule of law by rallying 45 signatories to our statement demanding that the Mueller investigation be allowed to reach its conclusion unimpeded.

Elsewhere in our portfolio, grantees have continued the slow and steady work of informing and engaging the public through trustworthy local journalism, building an effective and constructive Congress, and rebuilding a strong civic fabric by reaffirming our commitment to core American values.

Across the nation, I see dedicated Americans standing up for the type of democracy they want and working daily to build it. The determination our sector has shown has given me renewed faith in our democracy’s future and has increased my resolve to face the challenges ahead. In my open letter in July, I noted that our approach would be far more aggressive in combating the unprecedented threats that our democracy faces. In the new year, Democracy Fund looks forward to continuing to invest in efforts to create a more effective Congress, modern and secure elections, and a robust public square.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Constructive Oversight in the Newly Elected Congress

Lara Flint

November 27, 2018

Earlier this month, the Project On Government Oversight sponsored the first-ever Oversight Summit, convening experts from nonprofits, think tanks, Congress, and the executive branch to share best practices and strategies for improving oversight of and by the federal government. The Summit featured organizations across the political spectrum working to support meaningful oversight, transparency, and accountability efforts—including Democracy Fund grantees like the R Street Institute, the Levin Center, the Partnership for Public Service, and many others.

At Democracy Fund, we ground our work in a framework of principles we developed to describe the attributes of a healthy democracy. Under that framework, constitutional checks and balances and respect for the rule of law are critical to protecting Americans against abuses of power by their government. Co-equal branches of government and our federal system both serve as checks, and civil society plays a critical role in holding those in power accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people they represent.As expected, a topic that arose repeatedly was the incoming 116th Congress and its oversight powers and priorities. As is often the case under one-party rule, Congress has not leaned into its role as a check on the executive branch over the past two years. Despite a range of issues crying out for meaningful oversight, Congress largely did not engage, instead giving in to the hyper-partisanship that pervades our political system (though with some exceptions). Congress’ lack of institutional resources has further hamstrung its ability to fulfill its constitutional role to conduct oversight. With a president whose rhetoric and actions fundamentally threaten democratic norms, however, the stakes are high, and the need for effective oversight can no longer be ignored. While the 116th Congress has a full agenda, the incoming House leadership has promised oversight of the executive branch will be a top priority.

Our framework also emphasizes that political leaders bear an uncommon burden to act with integrity. Their words and actions should reflect democratic values, the Constitution, and the dignity of every individual.

As Democracy Fund’s Betsy Wright Hawkings outlined at the beginning of the 115th Congress, “For those who care about values-based leadership, rules matter—starting with the rule of law. And that is what oversight is—enforcement of the rules.” These principles apply regardless of who holds power.

So how should the new Congress exercise its oversight responsibilities? Some have debated whether the House should aggressively pursue investigations. I think that is the wrong question.

There is no shortage of oversight to be done—the hurricane recovery effort in Puerto Rico; separating children from their parents at the border; government officials using their positions to enrich themselves rather than serve the public good; or foreign attempts to influence our elections. All of this oversight is sorely needed.

Instead, the question is whether the House will ground that oversight in a methodical effort to make our government work better for the American people, or whether Democrats will approach its investigations as an opportunity for partisan retribution. Will the new House majority reach across the aisle—even if they expect to be rebuffed? Or will they go it alone from the beginning? Will they reflexively issue subpoenas, or deploy them as a last resort?

Strong oversight efforts can be aggressive and constructive. As former congressional oversight staffer Kris Kolesnik said during the Oversight Summit, “all oversight begins and ends by putting politics at the door.” The administration should absolutely be asked tough questions by members of Congress—but those members must also remember why they are asking these questions in the first place: to uncover and fix wrongdoing and make our government better, not to score political points.

This will take hard work, and unfortunately we know that Congress is under-resourced to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities under Article I—another theme raised frequently during the Summit. That is why Democracy Fund has invested in organizations that provide bipartisan oversight training to congressional staff; help ensure that government actions are transparent to the American people; and conduct their own investigations of government wrongdoing.The importance of this was underscored by Senator Carl Levin, a keynote speaker at the Summit and veteran of countless bipartisan oversight investigations during his decades in Congress. At the Summit Senator Levin awarded the first ever Carl Levin Award for Effective Oversight to South Carolina State Rep. Weston Newton, the Republican chairman of the Legislative Oversight Committee, who has worked across the aisle to make government work better in South Carolina. Rep. Newton explained how oversight should transcend party affiliation: “Whether an agency is doing its job properly or not should not be something that either party has the franchise on asking the questions [about]…nor should the party in power be afraid to ask the questions and expose the shortcomings of those agencies.”

Even with these challenges, by all reports the incoming House majority is poised to breathe new life into Congress’ role as a check on the executive branch. Done right, this is a critical component of our democratic system, it will protect against abuse of power, and it will make our government work better.