Northern California Grantmakers

For more than a decade, Northern California Grantmakers has partnered with the California Budget Project to inform members about the annual budgets that impact underserved communities and grantees they serve. NCG knows many of its members are interested in placing their work into context and by understanding how government is moving on important issues, members can get a sense for how they fit into the larger landscape and how they can help.

Back on Track?

California Budget Project Executive Director Christopher Hoene informed the attendees of NCG’s Annual California Budget Project Analysis that the most important part of his presentation title was the question mark at the end of it.
The overarching theme for his presentation was clear: the state is getting closer to solving its fiscal problem, but it has a long way to go when it comes to supporting public systems that assist our most vulnerable Californians and getting those support systems back to pre-recession levels.

“California is poised to turn the corner…but there are still many Californians hurting.”–Christopher Hoene, California Budget Project Executive Director

• Since 2008 the state lost 20 billion in revenue during the recession.
• We’re still coming out of the hole when it comes to jobless numbers.
• Long-term unemployment remains high.
• Income inequality has grown during the past two decades.
• In 2011, 1 in 6 Californians living in poverty. For children it’s 1 in 4.

These statistics underscore a harsh reality:  there are still a lot of people in the state that need public systems to support them. And while the 2013-2014 budget generally maintains last year’s funding levels–which were historically low levels.

“Even though the budget is back on track, [we] need to maintain the state’s fiscal sustainability and [we] need to reinvest in public support systems.”–Christopher Hoene, California Budget Project Executive Director

Specter of Sequestration

Despite increased revenue coming in from Prop. 30 & 39, despite the budget maintaining funding levels from last year, sequestration could undo everything. If sequestration causes the economy to stumble or stall then the revenue the state was counting on won’t come in and that will likely lead to mid-year cuts.

“If the economy doesn’t grow…we’ll hurt.”–Christopher Hoene, California Budget Project Executive Director

Local Perspective

To provide a perspective on what the 2013-14 budget means for our local communities, Chris’ presentation was followed by Kai Mander, Principal Administrative Analyst for Alameda County Administrator’s Office, and Jim Soos, the Assistant Director of Policy and Planning for the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

Takeaways from the local perspective:

• County budgets are driven by the economy, state budget, federal budget and the County has limited authority to raise revenue;
• Sequestration would mean across-the-board cuts to transportation, housing, education, criminal justice, health and human services, environmental protection and more;
• Sequestration will impact Medicare, WIC, HIV programs, substance abuse programs and more;
• Cuts made over the last few years have not been restored;
• How California decides to implement the Affordable Healthcare Act will affect counties-if the state puts responsibility on counties it will mean operational issues, compliance with state Department of Healthcare, IT and fiscal infrastructure issues and a varied beneficiary experience;
• Department of Finance is pushing the county option while the Department of Health is pushing the state option; and
• Counties feel the state has the infrastructure to implement the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Final Words for Funders

There is a danger in seeing the “balanced budget” and taking off pressure, the hard work must begin again to push for revenue to reinvest in many of the programs whose funding was decimated during the recession.

Program Resources

• California Budget Project Executive Director Christopher Hoene, presentation slides

• Alameda County Administrator’s Office Principal Administrative Analyst Kai Mander, presentation slides

• Sequestration Impact on California

• A Graphic Guide to the Sequestration

Additional Resources

Earlier this year California Philanthropy–Northern California Grantmakers, San Diego Grantmakers and Southern California Grantmakers–presented two state-wide programs on public policy.

What California Nonprofits and Philanthropy Need to Know About the Fiscal Cliff Deal | January 28th webinar
Presented in partnership with CalNonprofits, the January 28th webinar “What California Nonprofits and Philanthropy Need to Know About the Fiscal Cliff Deal” brought together the Special Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation Jonathan Greenblatt, Director of the California Department of Finance Ana Matosantos, and National Council of Nonprofits President and CEO Tim Delaney to share information about the aftermath of the “fiscal cliff” budget negotiations and what’s next for our sectors.

Visit the event page to view the webinar recording and for additional resources.

Civil Discourse? Progressive vs. Conservative Philanthropy | January 30th Livestream Broadcast
The charitable deduction and tax reform were one of many debated issues during this program. Executive Director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Aaron Dorfman and Director of the Hudson Institute‘s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal William Schambra explored how the giving practices and advocacy agendas differed-and even aligned-among conservative and progressive approaches to philanthropy.

Visit the event page to view the live broadcast recording and for additional resources.

Note: I made some additions to my post to give further context for why my imagination decided to wander into the realm of possible realities.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that despite the positive press coverage the Buffets-Gates Giving Pledge has received here in the United States, it has been widely criticized in Europe.

Take this quote from Guardian columnist Peter Wilby:

“If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don’t kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill.”

Ouch.

German shipping magnate and multimillionaire Peter Krämer offers some more pointed criticisms:

“The rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That’s unacceptable.”

But I wonder.

Say we lived in a world like that. The world Krämer alludes to where the donors are NOT “taking the place of the state.” Would there be anything we’d be missing out on? Anything that exists because of foundation support, anything that would not have come into existence if it had to rely on government support only?

I’ll be honest, imagining a hypothetical reality and then trying to figure out what might be missing isn’t science. It’s conjecture. True. But interesting (to me at least) to consider nonetheless.

A Lesson From Back To the Future

So say we went back in time to the stop foundations from coming into being, stopping the field of Philanthropy as we know it. How would that change our present?

McFly siblings begin to disappear

Remember that scene in Back to the Future when Marty McFly realizes he’s prevented his parents from meeting and falling in love? His siblings begin to disappear from the photograph he’s carrying, disappear from existence. So what do you think might disappear if foundations hadn’t been around?

Would the government have funded health research and clinics for politically divisive heath issues such as AIDS research and Planned Parenthood? And what about research for illnesses that only affect small percentages of our population? Would they have received any funding or support?

Would Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow have existed in this different reality? Would the government have hired “Joan Ganz Cooney to study how the media could be used to help young children, especially those from low-income families, learn and prepare for school?”

And what about the Environment and Green movement?

What about civil right movements and the end of apartheid? What would they have looked like without philanthropic support?

Acknowledging the Need for Partnership

Back to reality now. The country we live in does have foundations and the work of funders has been a rich part of our society’s history and innovation. We can’t undo our past, we must learn from it and move forward.

Perhaps that’s where the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation comes in. Some would say that the creation of this office is the government’s acknowledgment that partnering with Philanthropy is in the best interest of all of us. After all, there are some things foundations can do that government cannot, e.g. experiment and take risks, respond nimbly and with less red tape.

I’m reminded of a quote by Beth Kanter and Allison Fine that I mentioned here on this blog a while back:

“complex social problems, and all social problems are complex by definition, outpace the capacity of any individual or single organization to solve them.”

No “one” entity can do it alone, can solve all our societal ills. It’s going to take all of us.

All of us.

Read the full Wall Street Journal article “Europeans Attack Buffett-Gates Pledge as Undemocratic” online.