Working with Government

Networking for Success: Building Networks Is Essential to Investment in Social Impact Bonds

council-webteam — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:14:20 +0000

Networking for Success: Building Networks Is Essential to Investment in Social Impact Bonds council-webteam Tue, 03/04/2014 - 10:14

Networking for Success: Building Networks Is Essential to Investment in Social Impact Bonds

Working in collaboration with the Center for American Progress, the Council co-hosted conversations among foundations, community development financial institutions, and investment firms about social impact bonds and Pay for Success. Out of these conversations, two issue briefs were created:

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Endowments & Investing

Working with Government

Related Events

Related Resources

How Foundations Can Partner with USAID

JasonLudwig — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:34:11 +0000

How Foundations Can Partner with USAID JasonLudwig Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:34

How Foundations Can Partner with USAID

Foundations have been partnering with USAID in a variety of ways to advance locally led development, and below are how some of those partnerships are being executed. For member foundations interested in working with USAID on their own locally led development initiatives, Council on Foundations staff is available to help connect those foundations with USAID staff to begin exploring ways they can work together.

In 2023, 15 global foundations joined with bilateral donors to endorse a Donor Statement on Locally Led Development. Since then, we've seen steadily growing momentum for establishing both informal and formal partnerships between philanthropy and government aid agencies.

Establishing a Formal Partnership with USAID

Foundations are increasingly establishing formal partnerships with USAID, utilizing Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) to collaborate on a range of activities. Some examples of these partnerships between foundations and USAID include:

Conrad N. Hilton Foundation: Through this agreement, USAID and the Hilton Foundation will identify and apply their respective organizational strengths to advance locally led efforts in areas of shared interest, such as early childhood development, youth empowerment, disaster response and humanitarian assistance, safe water systems, and engagement with faith-based and community organizations. The two organizations will leverage their convening power, share networks, and coordinate outreach to mobilize U.S.-based and global philanthropies, civil society, and other stakeholders to prioritize elevating local leadership of development and humanitarian assistance.
Hewlett Foundation: USAID signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Center for Global Development (CGD) focusing on approaches to evaluation and evidence-generation. The partnership launches USAID’s Evidence Localization Initiative, to begin in Africa, and contributes to USAID, CGD, and Hewlett's broader priorities on advancing evidence-informed policy and locally led development.
Humanity United: Humanity United signed an MOU with the USAID’s Center for Conflict and Violence Prevention establishing a three-year collaboration to work towards advancing best practices related to locally led development and inclusive peacebuilding; facilitating information gathering and sharing through structured feedback sessions with local peacebuilders and USAID Missions; and creating a network of domestic and civil society organizations to provide input and guidance as locally led development practices evolve.
Skoll Foundation: USAID and the Skoll Foundation signed an MOU to explore and evaluate innovative, efficient, and, where appropriate, joint approaches for locally led development, particularly around (a) engaging local intermediaries who serve as fiscal agents or provide administrative support (e.g., payroll, award management, human resources, etc.) to a local network of organizations; and (b) identifying, coaching, and elevating local actors to be better positioned to receive awards from USAID and other donors. Additionally, USAID and Skoll will strengthen collaboration at the local level in USAID partner countries and build multi-stakeholder partnerships, including with additional foundations and likeminded donors, to support health, climate, and gender equality and equity, and optimize investments to address information manipulation, strengthening the resilience of information and media environments. USAID works in tandem with the Skoll Foundation in countries such as Brazil, where they aim to expand the abilities of local actors to execute projects that push forward climate action, biodiversity conservation, and thriving communities in the Brazilian Amazon.

USAID and Locally Led Development

USAID has doubled down on locally led development during the Biden Administration. In November 2021, agency Administrator Samantha Power announced two targets in pursuit of these goals: (a) by Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, USAID will direct a quarter of its funding directly to local partners; and (b) by 2030, at least half of USAID programs will create space for local actors to exercise leadership over priority-setting, activity design, implementation, and defining and measuring results. USAID's FY22 progress report notes that it reached $1.6 billion in direct local funding – a step in the right direction, but far from its targets.

USAID has also released a Local Capacity Strengthening Policy and an updated Risk Appetite Statement, clearly communicating how it intends to support its local partners.

Learn more about how USAID is supporting research and initiatives around locally led development.

Democracy Delivers Partnerships

The Democracy Delivers initiative was launched in 2022 by Administrator Power and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to bring together partners across sectors that can surge resources to countries undergoing moments of democratic renewal to maximize the likelihood that their democratic gains endure. Foundations who have made commitments to support Democracy Delivers include:

The Ford Foundation, which committed $20 million in new grants to support civic engagement in Moldova and Zambia and to advance the work of democracy-oriented actors in Tanzania and Nepal.
The Rockefeller Foundation, which committed up to approximately $28 million to benefit the Democracy Delivers cohort through rural electrification, climate resilience, food security, and more.

Additionally, in 2023, the following foundations announced investments supporting Democracy Delivers countries and objectives: The Chandler Foundation, The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Google.org, Humanity United, The International Chamber of Commerce, The Mott Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Skoll Foundation, The Tent Partnership for Refugees, The Tinker Foundation, The UPS Foundation, The Vodafone Foundation, and WINGS.

Read more about how foundations have supported global efforts to advance locally led development and democracy in Inside Philanthropy.

Additional Resources About Partnering with USAID

Interested in Partnering with USAID?

The Council can help. Contact govt@cof.org.

Go Back

Return to Locally Led Development Hub

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Equivalency Determination

Grantmaking Policies

International Giving

International Grantmaking Regulations

Partnerships & Collaboration

Working with Government

Working with Grantees

Related Events

Related Resources

Comments on Proposed Revisions to the Federal Guidance for Grants and Agreements OMB-2023-0017-0001

MatthewCain — Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:52:51 +0000

Comments on Proposed Revisions to the Federal Guidance for Grants and Agreements OMB-2023-0017-0001 MatthewCain Fri, 12/08/2023 - 09:52

Comments on Proposed Revisions to the Federal Guidance for Grants and Agreements OMB-2023-0017-0001

December 4, 2023

The Council on Foundations welcomes this opportunity to provide comments on the proposed revisions to the Federal Guidance for Grants and Agreements, OMB-2023-0017001.

The Council on Foundations is a nonprofit membership association that serves as a guide for philanthropies as they advance the greater good. Building on our almost 75-year history, the Council supports nearly 900 member organizations in the United States and around the world to build trust in philanthropy, expand pathways to giving, engage broader perspectives, and co-create solutions that will lead to a better future for all.

American nonprofit organizations provide resources to communities across the country and around the world, responding to urgent needs and filling gaps left by government services. Nonprofits are nimble and responsive, often piloting programs used as models for government programs at the local, state, and federal levels. In recent years, our members have assisted with COVID-19 vaccine distribution and information, responded to natural disasters like the Hawai’i wildfires, and provided humanitarian support to Ukraine. But the billions of dollars in funding our members provide to nonprofits each year are far exceeded by federal grantmaking: while foundation giving totaled $105.21 billion in 2022, the grants budget for the Department of Health and Human Services alone was over $140 billion in fiscal year 2022 (not including Medicare and Medicaid). While we do not apply for federal grants at the Council, our members and their nonprofit partners do—and in doing so, they face a process that is overly burdensome, inequitable, and inefficient.

Regardless of the federal agency they work with, our members and partners have attested that the federal grantmaking process poses significant inefficiencies and creates significant undue burden. Often, even if they do successfully complete the application and receive grants, the grant administration itself creates additional complications: reporting requirements are burdensome, grant terms are too short, and federal agencies are slow and overly bureaucratic. Our foundation members have developed deep expertise in grantmaking and understand how to deliver resources to communities efficiently and effectively. We urge OMB and other federal agencies to use this expertise to help improve the federal grantmaking process.

We were pleased to read the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed revisions to federal guidance for grants and agreements. In general, we support the proposed revisions, which would streamline the federal grants process and allow nonprofits to allocate resources to the communities that need them rather than wasting these resources on overcoming bureaucratic red tape.

We especially support the following changes to the Uniform Guidance and encourage OMB to implement them in a final rule:

[200.301(b)] Measuring what matters: We support OMB’s recommendation that agencies should request only necessary information from grant applicants and recipients. We further suggest that agencies right-size reporting requirements to the size of the grant: smaller dollar grants should not require more capacity from recipients than the grants themselves are worth. For instance, smaller grants likely do not require as frequent reporting as larger ones.
[200.414] Fully funding nonprofits’ work: Increasing the de minimis indirect cost rate to 15% allows for a more realistic recovery of indirect costs for nonprofits lacking the capacity to undergo a more extensive rate negotiation. We also applaud the proposed guidance’s clarification that federal agencies cannot force grant recipients to use an indirect cost rate lower than 15% unless required by statute. That said, 15% is still well below the actual indirect cost rate for many nonprofits, and we urge federal agencies to consider the full cost of grantees’ work when negotiating these rates, just as foundations have started to do.
[200.202; 200.205] Improving community engagement: We support OMB’s efforts to increase federal government and grantees’ engagement with communities impacted by grantmaking initiatives. We continue to urge federal agencies, foundations, and grant recipients to consult with the populations they intend to serve in order to better inform their work with these populations.
[202.204; Appendix I; 200.111; 200.501] Reducing barriers for communities in need: Existing complexity in the federal grants process means that nonprofits serving populations most in need of federal grants often cannot access it. Among other changes, we applaud the simplification of Notice of Funding Opportunities, the encouragement to use simpler language, the increase of the Single Audit Threshold, and the end of the English language mandate.

These proposed regulations represent only a starting point: we encourage OMB to issue final rules that further streamline the grantmaking process and prioritize nonprofit needs. We suggest the following improvements:

Provide up-front payments. Many agencies currently issue only reimbursements rather than up-front grants. Historically, larger and better-resourced organizations receive grants upfront, while smaller organizations—often representing underserved communities—are subject to the reimbursement model. This poses a significant impediment to nonprofit organizations operating on razor thin margins.
Discourage match requirements. Agencies often require grant applicants to secure matching funds from other sources, e.g. foundations. Many nonprofits, and in particular smaller organizations, lack the capacity and resources needed to secure this funding—especially when government grant applications already require significant time and effort.
Prioritize multi-year grants over one-year grants. Given the timelines necessary to accomplish complex community-oriented work, launch pilot programs, and track measurable outcomes, multi-year grants are nearly always more appropriate than single-year grants.
Standardize grant applications across government. Government grant applications are complicated and time-consuming enough: agencies should consider working together to standardize at least some elements of their grant applications, as some foundations do.
Request concept notes before requiring a full application. Even with these modifications, the federal grants process will be costly and complicated, and most applicants will not receive the grants. To help reduce this burden, agencies should follow the model of many foundations and request shorter concept notes when soliciting applications. They can then use these concept notes to develop a shortlist of potential grant recipients who should submit full proposals.

We thank OMB for this opportunity to submit comments on Proposed Revisions to the Federal Guidance for Grants and Agreements OMB-2023-0017-0001. We are eager to work with you so that final guidance further improves and streamlines grants administration to ensure funding reaches the communities that need it most.

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

FAQ: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard

MatthewCain — Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:33:54 +0000

FAQ: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard MatthewCain Thu, 08/10/2023 - 16:33

FAQ: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling on two cases involving the use of race-conscious admissions practices by colleges and universities: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC). For more information, the Council has a full page of resources about this ruling.

The majority opinion held that the race-conscious admissions programs implemented by Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and therefore these practices constitute unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race. While the Court’s decision only applied directly to the use of race as a factor in college and university admissions decisions, many Council members have asked about the potential application of Title VI discrimination claims outside of higher education and the possible implications of this decision for the philanthropic sector. The information below is based on our current understanding; this page will be updated as new or additional information arises.

Title VI

Title VI is a federal law enacted as part of the Civil Right Act of 1964. It states, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or nationals origin, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Once an organization receives federal financial assistance, Title VI applies to that organization.

Many private foundations, public charities, and nonprofit organizations do not receive federal financial assistance, and thus they are not subject to Title VI. That said, if your foundation receives federal funds directly or indirectly, as either the primary, secondary, or subrecipient of federal funding, you are likely subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI – although for many organizations, these obligations will extend only to the specific activities receiving federal funding and not to the organization’s activities as a whole.

“Federal financial assistance” may be monetary or nonmonetary, and it includes federal grants, loans, and contracts (other than contracts for goods or services at fair market value or of insurance or guaranty). It also includes funding provided through federal grants, cooperative agreements, and loans.

Typical tax benefits, tax exemptions, tax deductions, and most tax credits are not considered federal financial assistance, thus they do not subject your foundation to Title VI coverage. It is generally understood that a charitable organization’s tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) likewise does not constitute federal financial assistance.

If your organization’s mission is not based on providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation, then only activities associated with the specific programs for which your organization receives federal funds are subject to Title VI. It would not apply to your organization’s activities as a whole.

However, organizations that are principally engaged in providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation and receive federal funding are subject to Title VI in all areas of their activities, not just the specific program that received federal funding. Similarly, organizations that receive federal funding to broadly support the entire organization rather than a specific program are subject to Title VI requirements across the entire organization.

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans constitute federal assistance, but only while they remain active. Once the PPP loan is repaid (or, as in most cases, forgiven), your foundation is no longer subject to Title VI jurisdiction through that form of federal assistance.

Collecting and Using Demographic Data

Foundations may still collect demographic data as part of their grantmaking process (provided that no state statutes prohibit such collection). As long as your grants do not constitute contracts, a threshold that most grants fail to reach, then nothing in the SFFA decision impacts demographic data collection or use among grantmakers. If you have grants that meet the definition of contracts, there may be some issues under Section 1981, which we will discuss further in an upcoming FAQ.

Employment Procedures or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives

The ruling does not directly affect private employers. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the use of protected characteristics such as race or gender in employment decisions is already prohibited in almost all circumstances. This ruling does not change the law governing private employers, although it's possible that courts could choose to examine future Title VII discrimination claims through the lens of the SFFA decision.

Foundations and other employers can review their current HR procedures to ensure they are compliant with existing federal and applicable state or local laws governing employment decisions.

To the extent that those initiatives and policies are intended to foster opportunities for professional success and a supportive workplace for employees of all backgrounds, there is nothing in the SFFA decision that affects such programs, provided they do not confer preferential status upon employees or prospective employees due to protected characteristics like race or gender.

It remains legal for employers to make public commitments to DEI principles in their employment practices so long as those practices are compliant with existing employment law. Because these initiatives and policies are likely to be the subject of increased scrutiny following this ruling, employers should pay close attention to how they discuss the role that race, gender, or other protected characteristics might play in advancing their DEI goals. Those goals should be clearly defined, and the means used to advance them should be carefully structured to avoid the appearance that the employer’s stated commitment to DEI is functioning as a way to engage in unlawful discrimination. Employers should be prepared, if challenged, to articulate how they are able to meet their DEI goals without impermissibly considering a candidate’s race, gender, or any other protected characteristic.

Section 1981

Section 1981 from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 refers to 42 U.S. Code Section 1981, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity when making or enforcing contracts. Specifically, it grants “all persons...the same right...to make and enforce contracts...as is enjoyed by white citizens.”

Unlike the anti-discrimination provisions that apply to employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 only covers discrimination based on race or ethnicity

Section 1981 applies to all people within the United States in the context of making or enforcing contracts and covers non-government/private actors. It does not apply to gifts or other non-contractual agreements between parties.

A contract is an agreement between parties that creates a legally enforceable mutual obligation. For an agreement to rise to the level of a legally enforceable contract there must be agreement between the parties to contract, an offer and acceptance, and consideration (see below).

Consideration is a bargained-for exchange in which a party makes a promise to another party for something else in return (i.e., a quid pro quo). Without adequate consideration, a contract does not exist. For example, a promise to make a gift to someone else is generally not legally enforceable as a contract because a true gift does not include a bargained-for exchange in return.

Although there is a clear definition of a contract, there is no bright line rule for what separates a grant from a contract. The fewer requirements within a grant agreement the more likely it could be viewed by a court as a gift rather than a contract. Agreements that don’t require a grantee to perform specific activities or achieve certain outcomes to receive the funds are more likely to be viewed as grants rather than contracts. Even grant funds that are limited to specific purposes are likely to be viewed as gifts rather than contracts as long as the distribution is made without strings attached and any remedies contained in the grant agreement do not imply a promise to perform by the grantee. If you have questions about how your organization’s grants are structured, it might be a good idea to consult legal counsel.

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

SFFA Case Summary and Ruling

MatthewCain — Tue, 18 Jul 2023 19:53:08 +0000

SFFA Case Summary and Ruling MatthewCain Tue, 07/18/2023 - 15:53

SFFA Case Summary and Ruling

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling on two cases involving the use of race-conscious admissions practices by colleges and universities: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC).

The Council is working to understand how the decision’s reverberations may extend to philanthropy and to our nonprofit partners. To better support our members and the broader charitable sector, our legal team is developing FAQs and other materials to answer your questions about the potential consequences for your organizations, your nonprofit partners, and your communities. Additionally, we are sharing a range of resources from our members, partners, and other stakeholders discussing what this decision may mean for the work of foundations and nonprofits, as well as potential paths forward.

Since the Supreme Court's decision, there have been subsequent lawsuits and other activity. The Council's legal team is closely following these developments and how they could impact our members and the sector. We will continue to provide updated resources and information that reflects our current legal analysis.

Resources:

Legal FAQ: An FAQ from the Council's legal team on the impacts and implications from the Supreme Court's decision.
Steptoe & Johnson Analysis: Commissioned by the Council and Independent Sector, this analysis looks at how the Supreme Court’s decision could potentially impact foundations and other nonprofit organizations
Questions and Answers Regarding the Supreme Court's Decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v Harvard College and University of North Carolina: The Departments of Justice and Education released guidance for colleges related to admissions in the wake of the Supreme Court's June decision. Released August 2023.
Charitable: Eliminating Prejudice and Discrimination: Nonprofit Law Blog post from August 2023.
Preliminary Guidance Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC: EducationCounsel developed preliminary guidance for higher education institutions and leaders. Published July 2023.
The Board’s Role in Adopting and Overseeing an Organization’s Approach to Race-Conscious and Race-Exclusive Activities and How Counsel Can Help: Brief by Joshua Mintz, Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Drafted before the Supreme Court's June 2023 decision was announced.
Tax-Exempt Approaches to Decision-Making Informed by Race: Terminology, Definitions, Risk and Focus on Racial Equity and Justice: John Tyler, Martha Jimenez, and Lauren Bright present a framework for charities and foundations to integrate racial considerations into decision-making, detailing approaches such as race-neutral and race-based, with associated risks and equity intentions.

Responses:

Kathleen Enright’s Statement: Statement from Council President and CEO Kathleen Enright
Philanthropic Joint Statement: Led by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Ford Foundation, and signed by more than 100 organizations, including the Council

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Working with Government

Related Events

Related Resources

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (H.R. 7010)

council-webteam — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:02:46 +0000

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (H.R. 7010) council-webteam Wed, 06/10/2020 - 12:02

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (H.R. 7010)

Bill #5 – Enacted June 5, 2020

Comprehensive Coronavirus Legislation Guide for the Charitable Sector

This is a summary of the fifth bill Congress passed to help with the effects of the coronavirus outbreak. This guide highlights the specific provisions of that bill that may impact the charitable sector. The Congress has passed four other bills which are included in the Comprehensive Guide.

The primary purpose of this fifth bill is to provide more flexibility for recipients of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans with respect to repayment and loan forgiveness. The bill also removes a provision in the CARES Act that prevented organizations receiving PPP loan forgiveness from also taking advantage of employer payroll tax payment deferrals. More specific guidance related to the PPP Flexibility Act can be found in the SBA’s Revisions to First Interim Final Rule.

Relevance to the Charitable Sector

Clarification of Minimum Maturity Dates for PPP Loan Balances not Subject to Forgiveness

While the original PPP provisions in the CARES Act included a maximum maturity of 10 years for loan balances remaining after determining amounts that qualify for forgiveness, the PPP Flexibility Act also imposes a minimum maturity of five years for loans made on or after June 5, 2020 (for loans made before June 5, 2020, the maturity date is two years unless borrowers and lenders mutually agree to extend that date). The SBA determined that the date it assigns a loan number to the PPP loan provides an efficient, transparent, and auditable means of determining when a PPP loan is “made” that provides certainty to lenders.

PPP Loan Forgiveness Covered Period Extended

Under the original PPP provisions in the CARES Act, loan forgiveness was determined based on use of loan proceeds during an eight-week period beginning on the date of loan origination. The PPP Flexibility Act expands that period to either 24 weeks or December 31, 2020 (whichever is earlier). The PPP Flexibility Act also amends the definition of “covered period;” extending it from February 15, 2020 – June 30, 2020 to February 15, 2020 – December 31, 2020. In order to receive any loan forgiveness, a borrower must submit to its lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of the loan forgiveness covered period. If they do so, the borrower will not have to make any payments of principal or interest on its loan before the date on which SBA either remits the loan forgiveness amount to the lender, or notifies the lender that no loan forgiveness is allowed.

New Flexible Provisions to Address Reduction in FTEs and Re-Hires

Under the original provisions in the CARES Act, an organization that experienced a reduction in FTEs after February 15, 2020 had until June 30, 2020 to restore those positions and eliminate the reduction in FTEs or risk failure to qualify for loan forgiveness. The PPP Flexibility Act extends that time period to December 31, 2020. The Act also includes a new exemption based on employee availability. This provision states that PPP loan forgiveness will be determined without regard to a proportional reduction in FTEs, if the organization has made good faith efforts to rehire, but has failed to restore FTEs within the required time period due to an inability to hire similarly qualified employees for unfilled positions on or before December 31, 2020 or is able to document an inability to return to the same level of business activity as before February 15, 2020, due to compliance with requirements established or guidance issued by the Secretary of HHS, the Director of the CDC, or OSHA during the period beginning on March 1, 2020, and ending December 31, 2020.

New Ratio for Application of PPP Loan Proceeds

The PPP Flexibility Act provides more flexibility with respect to how PPP loan recipients use the loan proceeds. Previously, a recipient was required to apply at least 75% of PPP loan proceeds to payroll costs and the remaining 25% could be applied to mortgage interest, rent, and utilities. The PPP Flexibility Act amends that ratio; recipients now need only apply 60% toward payroll costs and up to 40% can be applied to mortgage interest, rent, and utilities.

Removal of Restriction on PPP Loan Forgiveness/Payroll Tax Deferral

Under the CARES Act, employers were not permitted to take advantage of a provision allowing the employer to delay payment of its employer payroll taxes if the employer also received PPP loan forgiveness. The PPP Flexibility Act removes this restriction and allows employers to participate in both programs.

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Working with Government

Related Events

Related Resources

Our Divided Nation: Is There a Role for Philanthropy in Renewing Democracy?

council-webteam — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:22:03 +0000

Our Divided Nation: Is There a Role for Philanthropy in Renewing Democracy? council-webteam Mon, 04/15/2019 - 10:22

Our Divided Nation: Is There a Role for Philanthropy in Renewing Democracy?

American democracy faces challenges that raise difficult questions for philanthropy. Have funders done everything possible to shore up democratic values and aspirations, or pursued their own ideas of the public good and turned a blind eye to these challenges? To what extent can philanthropy’s efforts to strengthen communities and rebuild public trust be effective in the face of stiff headwinds? How can it be more responsive to the needs of a democratic society? And what role does the public play, if any, in defining the priorities of grantmaking organizations?

This report from the Council on Foundations and the Kettering Foundation summarizes a two-day symposium that the two organizations convened in May 2018 to wrestle with these questions. A group of prominent foundation leaders working at the national, state, and community levels explored how philanthropy can narrow the gap between people and institutions, strengthen public engagement, build civic capacity, and generally bolster democratic norms and practices in the United States.

As the report points out, foundations often stress the importance of advancing democracy and serving the common good, yet there is no real consensus in the field about what this means in the context of a divided public or how it is to be achieved. One of the challenges facing philanthropy today is to figure out what kind of democracy it wants to support and how best to go about doing that.

Download Full Report

Download Executive Summary

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Nonmonetary Grants

Working with Government

Related Events

Related Resources

CDFI Fund Map of All Census Tracts Eligible for Designation as a Qualified Opportunity Zone

kelsey.gerber@cof.org — Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:25:56 +0000

CDFI Fund Map of All Census Tracts Eligible for Designation as a Qualified Opportunity Zone kelsey.gerber@… Tue, 02/12/2019 - 14:25

CDFI Fund Map of All Census Tracts Eligible for Designation as a Qualified Opportunity Zone

The CDFI Fund has identified over 41,000 population census tracts that are eligible for designation as a QOZ, including (1) 31,680 population census tracts that are Low-Income Communities (LICs) eligible for designation as QOZs; and (2) 9,453 non-LIC population census tracts that are eligible for designation if a particular LIC contiguous to the non-LIC tract is designated as a QOZ. Contiguous Tracts must be at or below 125% of the area median income.

Go to External Resource

CDFI Fund Map of All Census Tracts Eligible for Designation as a Qualified Opportunity Zone

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Related Resources

US Impact Investing Alliance Resources on Opportunity Zones

kelsey.gerber@cof.org — Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:22:32 +0000

US Impact Investing Alliance Resources on Opportunity Zones kelsey.gerber@… Tue, 02/12/2019 - 14:22

US Impact Investing Alliance Resources on Opportunity Zones

Now that Opportunity Zones have been designated, individual and corporate investors are then given the opportunity to defer capital gains taxes when they reinvest the earnings in these communities. Additional incentives accrue over five, seven and ten years if the investment is maintained – thereby promoting the kind of patient capital that distressed communities so often lack. Get more of the resources you need to learn about Opportunity Zones from the US Impact Investing Alliance.

Go to External Resource

US Impact Investing Alliance Resources on Opportunity Zones

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Related Resources

How Community Foundations Can Use the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive for Community Development?

kelsey.gerber@cof.org — Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:13:24 +0000

How Community Foundations Can Use the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive for Community Development? kelsey.gerber@… Tue, 02/12/2019 - 14:13

How Community Foundations Can Use the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive for Community Development?

This white paper from the Community Foundation Public Awareness Initiative discusses a timely and significant opportunity for community foundations (CFs): How they can use the recently enacted federal Opportunity Zone tax incentive to benefit communities in need by leveraging their knowledge of underprivileged communities, networks of donors, and commitment to community development. The memo explores several options for CFs to take advantage of the Opportunity Zone (OZ) incentive to support their mission.

Go to External Resource

How Community Foundations Can Use the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive for Community Development?

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff

Working with Government

Networking for Success: Building Networks Is Essential to Investment in Social Impact Bonds

Networking for Success: Building Networks Is Essential to Investment in Social Impact Bonds

Questions?

Related Events

Related Resources

How Foundations Can Partner with USAID

How Foundations Can Partner with USAID

Establishing a Formal Partnership with USAID

USAID and Locally Led Development

Democracy Delivers Partnerships

Additional Resources About Partnering with USAID

Interested in Partnering with USAID?

Go Back

Questions?

Related Events

Related Resources

Comments on Proposed Revisions to the Federal Guidance for Grants and Agreements OMB-2023-0017-0001

Comments on Proposed Revisions to the Federal Guidance for Grants and Agreements OMB-2023-0017-0001

December 4, 2023

Questions?

FAQ: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard

FAQ: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard

Legal Disclaimer

Title VI

What is Title VI and who does it apply to?

What qualifies as federal financial assistance for the purposes of applying Title VI?

If my organization received federal funding, does that mean it is subject to Title VI in all respects or just with respect to certain activities?

What if my foundation received a PPP loan?

Collecting and Using Demographic Data

Are there any concerns or risks around collecting/using demographic data as part of grantmaking?

Employment Procedures or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives

Does this ruling have an immediate impact on foundations’ hiring or other HR practices?

Does this case impact foundations’ internal DEI initiatives or policies?

Section 1981

What is Section 1981?

Who does Section 1981 apply to?

What is considered a contract?

What is a consideration?

What requirements in a grant might make it a contract rather than a gift?

Questions?

SFFA Case Summary and Ruling

SFFA Case Summary and Ruling

Resources:

Responses:

Questions?

Related Events

Related Resources

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (H.R. 7010)

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (H.R. 7010)

Bill #5 – Enacted June 5, 2020

Relevance to the Charitable Sector

Clarification of Minimum Maturity Dates for PPP Loan Balances not Subject to Forgiveness

PPP Loan Forgiveness Covered Period Extended

New Flexible Provisions to Address Reduction in FTEs and Re-Hires

New Ratio for Application of PPP Loan Proceeds

Removal of Restriction on PPP Loan Forgiveness/Payroll Tax Deferral

Questions?

Related Events

Related Resources

Our Divided Nation: Is There a Role for Philanthropy in Renewing Democracy?

Our Divided Nation: Is There a Role for Philanthropy in Renewing Democracy?

Questions?

Related Events

Related Resources

CDFI Fund Map of All Census Tracts Eligible for Designation as a Qualified Opportunity Zone

CDFI Fund Map of All Census Tracts Eligible for Designation as a Qualified Opportunity Zone

Go to External Resource

Questions?

Related Events

Related Resources

US Impact Investing Alliance Resources on Opportunity Zones

US Impact Investing Alliance Resources on Opportunity Zones

Go to External Resource

Questions?

Related Events

Related Resources

How Community Foundations Can Use the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive for Community Development?

How Community Foundations Can Use the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive for Community Development?

Go to External Resource