Institutional Isomorphism & the Rise of a Hybrid Model in Education Philanthropy

• In Event: The Public-Private Mix

Abstract

The role of private philanthropies in education policy and politics has largely been under scrutinized (Hess & Henig, 2015). Meanwhile, their influence on the cultivation and implementation of major policy reform efforts in individual districts and across the nation has expanded and deepened (Reckhow, 2016; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014). Perhaps the most substantial area through which foundations can influence education policy is their grantmaking. However, relatively little research has been directed at how foundations undertake this core function, including how it continues to evolve and the influence such practices have the organizational field.

In this paper, I draw upon a theoretical framework informed by institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) to analyze the grantmaking practices of traditional and strategic philanthropies, with particular attention to areas of increasing convergence such as the utilization of measurable outcomes and metrics. Most recent literature examines the ways in which traditional and strategic philanthropies differ in their approach to grantmaking (see Hess & Henig, 2015; Reckhow, 2010, 2013; Scott, 2009; Snyder, 2015; Tompkins-Stange, 2016). Literature that does examine convergence of traditional and strategic foundations tends to focus on the funding of specific grantees and policy- and advocacy-focused activities (Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Snyder, 2015). The application of institutional isomorphism draws into focus the ways in which the grantmaking practices of traditional and strategic philanthropies inform and conform to each other, leading to “homogeneity of organizational forms and practices” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 148). It suggests that foundations behave like many organizations working in contested policy areas where political pressure to prove success is high, but technologies are poorly understood, goals are ambiguous, and the context of policy implementation breeds uncertainty. Specifically, foundations model themselves on other foundations to shore up their own legitimacy while attempting to mitigate said uncertainty (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The end result is a field marked by likeness as opposed to variation, which has direct consequences when it comes to determining which policy problems and solutions, and subsequently organizations, are privileged and funded.

To analyze grantmaking practices, I undertake semi-structured, open-ended interviews with program officers from seven different foundations active in funding K-12 education. In order to consider foundations of different sizes and those funding at both the national and local level, I select foundations that have funded organizations in the same major urban school district from 2010 to 2016, a district that has a very active local funding community in addition to attracting investment from foundations with a national scope. I also select foundations that represent a mix of strategic and traditional philanthropy, and have a variety of endowment sizes and investment levels in education. In addition, I build on earlier literature identifying convergence in funding by illustrating the pattern of convergence between strategic philanthropies and traditional philanthropies. For this analysis, I use publicly available information, including 990-PF tax forms, from Foundation Directory Online to show where homogenization of grantmaking practices may be leading to homogenization of the grantee pool and, ergo, solutions to policy problems.

Preliminary findings suggest that homogenization is giving rise to a third model – a "hybrid philanthropy model" – that is distinct from traditional and strategic philanthropy. Such a model is distinguished by its focus on theory of change (of grantee organizations and the foundation itself), measurable outcomes, metrics, and grantee capacity building, all of which inform the selection of organizations and projects to fund. Moreover, the alignment of traditional foundations with strategic philanthropy models and the influence of larger policy trends focused on identifying measurable outcomes may be leading many foundations to exercise what might be termed “high-stakes grantmaking,” wherein foundations make grants based on the ability of grantee organizations to set and reach high achievement measures and preference grant renewals to organizations that meet such measures. Such grantmaking is high stakes because grantees are under pressure to hit the measures to obtain funding. The implications of this are manifold, as it could highly restrict what policies problems and solutions grantees deem as valuable to pursue based on whether grantees believe they can measure the outcomes of a proposed solution and reach the goals determined in the grant agreement. To the extent that this might conflict with what is good for students and communities, and the goals of democratic decision-making in education policy more broadly, additional research is needed.

Author

• Sara R. Sands, Teachers College, Columbia University