Philanthropies and Intermediary Organizations in Denver, Colorado: Incentivist-Oriented Advocacy Coalitions

• In Event: Philanthropy and Charter School Practice and Policy: State-Based Case Studies

Abstract

Objectives:
In response to the increasing involvement of private philanthropists in education policy, a dynamic sector of intermediary actors has emerged. These actors broker the production and use of research evidence among government and education policy-makers. This sector has gained visibility and momentum at the national level and in local policy arenas, frequently serving as entrepreneurs and champions for policy-agendas promoted by philanthropists. Little is known about how intermediaries and philanthropists work together to shape public policy and movements toward privatization in education.


Theoretical Framework:
We use an advocacy coalition framework to understand how philanthropists and intermediary organizations work in shifting, ephemeral networks around specific issues. As coalition, network-members find common causes with other organizations that can move ideas forward through research production, policy circles, the media, etc. We draw on an economic theory of goods to understand how policymakers surrogate forms of certainty on research evidence when complex data, methods, and interpretation make issues less clear. Just as different types of consumer goods have qualities that give producers inherent informational advantages over consumers, policymakers look to outside sources to interpret or certify research findings, thus providing opportunities for intermediary groups to serve such functions.

Methods and Data Sources:
This mixed-methods research project combines interviews and event observations. We use content and bibliometric analyses of documents produced to persuade policymakers and the public to embrace “evidence” of the legitimacy and effectiveness of specific policies. We report our findings on one city, Denver, from a larger multi-city study to examine the role of intermediary organizations in the policymaking process. We interviewed and collected documents from actors in policymaking positions, advocacy organizations, teachers unions, philanthropies, and community groups. In addition to content analyses intended to see what types of evidence and expertise is cited in support of policy agendas, we conducted bibliometric analyses in order to systematically determine how ideas and evidence are embraced across sets of groups as they act as coalitions around issues.

Results:
Findings suggest local philanthropies have catalyzed much of the recent policy movement in Denver, and intermediary groups have responded to funding possibilities and to meet the needs of marshaling research evidence in support of the agendas the philanthropies are promoting. Denver had been relatively free of the adversarial politics that characterize such reforms in other cities, and the local philanthropies saw themselves as building bridges across political constituencies. Intermediary organizations are increasingly creating a more acrimonious policy climate as they embrace a politics of opposition to advance their agendas. Several smaller philanthropies have indicated ambivalence toward the incentivist reforms they fund, yet lend support in their goal to be seen as “players” in the philanthropic and policy worlds.

Significance:
Our analysis suggests “outsourcing” of the “dirty work” of research production and advocacy to intermediary groups. Working in ideologically defined coalitions, while perhaps intending to preserve the credibility of philanthropies, those operating within interstices may instead lead to a more divisive rather than monolithic policy environment.

Authors

• Elizabeth H. DeBray, University of Georgia

• Janelle T. Scott, University of California - Berkeley

• Christopher A. Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign