The Trust for Civic Life and Reflections on Rural Philanthropy
The Chronicle of Philanthropy had an article on the new Trust for Civic Life back on June 17, 2024 – it came to my attention today as U.S. News had an article published a shorter version, (via the Associated Press) today. The article focus on a a new initiative by larger grant makers to focus on rural philanthropy – seeing “small, local groups as instruments of change.” According to the article, The Trust for Civic Life was established as a collaborative of 15 grantmakers. The Trust’s first round of funding consisted of $8.0 million in grants focused on “rural, often high-poverty towns, regions, and tribal areas.” The Trust’s website indicates that they are focusing on the Black belt, Central Appalachia, Tribal Lands, the Southwest border, and “communities in transition in the rural U.S.” Apparently, the first round of grants are “between $300,000 and $425,000 in general-operating support over three years.”
The US News article doesn’t list all fifteen of the funders (the Chronicle does), but notes that they come from organizations from different ends of the ideological spectrum, including the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Walmart Foundation, Stand Together (aka Charles Koch’s foundation) are listed in the article. The others can be found on the Trust’s website, and include notables such as the Omidyar Network, the MacArthur Foundation, the Packard Foundation, and the Knight Foundation, among others. As a technical matter, according to the Trust’s website, it is a “sponsored project” of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, which introduced the project earlier this year.
I really welcome a renewed attention to rural philanthropic structures. I went to school in Boston; I practiced in NYC, Chicago, and Indianapolis. As a result, my views on philanthropy were somewhat skewed, to be honest, by my experience in these very large, urban markets. I didn’t really appreciate the differences in the philanthropic experience of rural areas until I moved here to West Virginia, especially the impact of isolation from the lack of infrastructure (general and philanthropic). In that regard, I’m happy to see that the West Virginia Community Development Hub was one of the first of the Trust’s grantees.
On a broader level, however, I thought about a recent post here on the Blog entitled “The Great DAF Debate” by my colleague Ben Leff. As a re-read that post, I note that so much of the discussion about DAFs, and endowments generally, doesn’t think about the impact on smaller communities. In small, rural communities, a community foundation may be the only philanthropic infrastructure available. Unlike Boston or New York, a mandatory spend down requirement might not be a problem, as philanthropic dollars might flow in continually to replace that which is spent. In smaller communities, DAF/endowments might be the lifeblood of social services in the area – if there is no endowment, there may be no critical funds for the community center, no emergency clinic, no low-cost day care. The flow of charitable money is sporadic – the expectation that the coffers will refill in due time may not be true. This thought of a paper has been floating around in my head (and my scholarship agenda) for some bit. I hope that this perspective isn’t lost in the grand DAF/endowment debate, and I’m happy to see the Trust for Civic Life taking up the change and will be interested to see how things develop.
Hopefully, eww