Sarah Reckhow

The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Education Politics

Philanthropic involvement in education politics has become bolder and more visible. Have foundations changed funding strategies to enhance their political influence? Using data from 2000, 2005, and 2010, we investigate giving patterns among the 15 largest education foundations. Our analyses show growing support for national-level advocacy organizations. Furthermore, we find that foundations increasingly fund organizations that operate as “jurisdictional challengers” by competing with traditional public sector institutions. We apply social network analysis to demonstrate the growing prevalence of convergent grant-making—multiple foundations supporting the same organizations. These results suggest that a sector once criticized for not leveraging its investments now increasingly seeks to maximize its impact by supporting alternative providers, investing concurrently, and supporting grantees to engage in policy debates.

Network governance and regional equity: Shared agendas or problematic partners?

Over the past decade, scholars from various fields have argued that the salience of the metropolitan region as a scale of real economic interaction and public intervention has increased significantly. Simultaneously, many scholars have identified a shift in governing processes away from formal bureaucratic forms toward “network governance.” This article joins these fields by (1) evaluating the challenges and opportunities posed by network governance systems in a range of policy venues from the local to the global level, and (2) applying these insights to the problem of economic inequality within metropolitan regions and the multiple efforts to address it. Although we are sympathetic with the goals of regional equity and the participatory promise of network governance, our objective is to paint a realistic picture of the limits to joining these agendas. We conclude that, for equity issues, public deliberation does not take place around one fixed “table”—limiting the usefulness of much of the governance literature. Instead, public deliberation around social equity occurs in an evolutionary manner as members of progressive networks engage networks of business and pro-growth interests in a series of skirmishes throughout a region and over time. More often than not, these exchanges occur at “real scales” such as city-council chambers or state legislatures, and involve traditional forms of political action rather than “network governance” per se.

The Distinct Patterns of Organized and Elected Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups

Studies of minority political incorporation have demonstrated that advocacy organizations are critical for advancing minority electoral success and policy change. Drawing on an original data set of 30 midsized U.S. cities, the author evaluates the extent of organized representation of racial and ethnic groups and the effect of organized representation on elected representation. Latinos and Asian-Americans both have greater numbers of local advocacy organizations as the groups’ proportion of the population increases. Yet many cities with sizable African-American populations have a lower density of advocacy organizations than cities with fewer African-Americans. A smaller field of organizations increases elected representation for African-Americans but not for Latinos.

CAPACITY AND EQUITY: FEDERAL FUNDING COMPETITION BETWEEN AND WITHIN METROPOLITAN REGIONS

ABSTRACT: Major federal grant programs in areas such as transportation, neighborhood development, and education increasingly rely on competition to award funds. Yet the capacity to develop a competitive application for funds can vary widely, with some places lacking civic resources that contribute to successful grant applications. Moreover, not all civic actors and priorities have similar levels of involvement in grant seeking; in particular, low-income communities may be left out of the process. Our research examines how two forms of capacity—civic and equity advocacy—affect the distribution of federal transportation grants between and within metropolitan regions. We use multiple methods of analysis, including comparative case studies of transportation projects in Miami and Orlando, as well as a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of competitive transportation grants. First, we assess how civic capacity affects whether a region secured federal transportation funding and find that civic capacity is positively associated with receiving competitive transportation grants in both the case studies and quantitative analysis. Second, we examine whether equity advocacy capacity within a region is associated with grant project benefits for low-income communities. Based on the case studies, we find that equity advocacy capacity may be a key condition in order for grants to benefit low-income communities, and our exploratory quantitative analysis further supports for this finding. Overall our findings substantiate concerns that competition for federal awards could exacerbate disparities between and within regions.

Political determinants of philanthropic funding for urban schools

ABSTRACT K-12 education philanthropy has grown rapidly since 2000, with major funders like the Gates and Walton foundations expanding their grant portfolios. We examine whether and to what degree place-based characteristics help explain funding for local school districts. Using an original database of grants from the 15 largest K-12 education foundations to the largest school districts in 2000, 2005, and 2010, we present three main findings. First, the set of districts receiving the most funds varies over time. Second, foundations tended to give to sites with capacity for reform in 2000; yet by 2010, funders increasingly targeted places embracing philanthropic priorities, including charter schools and Teach for America. Finally, major foundations increasingly gave grants to same districts as other major funders—producing a convergent pattern of funding. These rapid and dramatic changes introduce questions about how foundations and districts interact and whether these funds will produce sustained reforms.

“Outsiders with Deep Pockets” The Nationalization of Local School Board Elections

Recent election cycles have seen growing attention to the role of “outside” money in urban school board elections. Using an original data set of more than 16,000 contributions covering election cycles from 2008 to 2013 in four school districts (Los Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; Denver, CO; Bridgeport, CT), we show how large national donors play a significant role. Our study links two dynamic fields that are rarely studied together: (1) the behavior of wealthy donors in a changing national campaign finance system and (2) the evolving politics of urban education. By examining donor networks, we illuminate the mechanisms behind the nationalization of education politics and national donor involvement in local campaigns. We show that shared affiliations through education organizations are significantly associated with school board campaign contributions.

Rootless Reforms? State Takeovers and School Governance in Detroit and Memphis

State takeovers were an infrequently applied strategy to address financially and academically troubled schools for many decades. Although 23 states had the right to take over individual schools, only five had exercised their power by 2005 (Steiner, 2005). Then, a new state takeover model emerged in Louisiana. Following Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of New Orleans, state legislation in November 2005 brought the majority of the city’s public schools under the state Recovery School District (RSD). The RSD moved aggressively toward a portfolio management model by authorizing numerous charter management organizations (CMOs) to operate schools (Bulkley & Henig, 2015; Levin, Daschbach, & Perry, 2010). The opportunity for a more extensive state role in taking over troubled schools grew further with the announcement of the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program in 2009. RTTT required states to develop plans to turn around their lowest-achieving schools. We examine how Michigan and Tennessee developed and implemented plans for school turnaround districts partly inspired by Louisiana’s RSD. Our comparative case studies focus on Michigan’s policies and involvement in Detroit schools through the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) and Tennessee’s policies and involvement in Memphis schools through the Achievement School District (ASD). Although state-level, philanthropic, and charter school leaders in both states initially drew upon the RSD model, Michigan and Tennessee have diverged from the RSD—and from one another—in many respects. These differences highlight some challenges to replicating the RSD in other contexts and, more generally, raise questions about school turnarounds primarily led by networks of outside actors. We examine divergence in state legislation and leadership, resources (federal and philanthropic), engagement with charter schools, and district-level leadership. The EAA and ASD have faced additional challenges due to their policy and political contexts, including a city-county merger in Memphis and an ongoing fiscal crisis in Detroit. Local school leaders in both cities have also developed their own reform plans, and sometimes have openly opposed the controversial state-led efforts. Our analysis shows how a lack of coordination with local leadership can compromise the sustainability of state-led reform.

Book Review: Stephen Goldsmith and Donald F. Kettl (Eds.). Unlocking the Power of Networks: Keys to High-Performance Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2009. 252 pp.

Would government perform more effectively and efficiently if administrators worked in horizontal networks incorporating diverse stakeholders, rather than in hierarchical bureaucracies? The title of this book certainly implies that the answer is “yes,” but the cases described inside support a far more conditional and qualified conclusion. This edited volume ambitiously tries to demonstrate how networked government is a pragmatic solution to modern problems, describes a wide array of reforms in government administration such as outsourcing and collaborative policy making, and addresses the “darker” side of networks such as terrorist networks. Unfortunately, these divergent ambitions fail to leave the reader with a clear understanding of what networked government is (and what it is not) and why it should be regarded as more effective than other approaches to governing. The bulk of the volume consists of case studies of new approaches to public administration. Three of the cases deal with environmental policy (cooperative conservation in the Department of the Interior, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and climate change policy in California). Three others focus on national security policy (integration of the national intelligence community, the Coast Guard and port security, and al-Qaeda’s “dark network”). One case focuses on social policy, highlighting state reforms in welfare eligibility systems. Throughout the volume, the authors of each chapter use the term network as a metaphor for a range of changes in policy making and implementation. None of the authors in this volume use social network analysis, a technique for analyzing social relationships between actors and for visualizing networks. The authors of the chapter on “dark networks,” H. Brinton Milward and Jörg Raab, state that “‘Network’ is a frequently used term, and it is often not clear exactly how it is being used” (p. 172). They go on to cite a definition of networks: “a network is a specific social structure characterized by a preponderance of informal communication relations, a horizontal as opposed to hierarchical pattern of relations, and a decentralized pattern of actors’ positions” (p. 172). Yet most of the cases in this volume fall short of presenting networks that fit this definition; instead, they provide a metaphorical muddle that echoes Milward and Raab’s observation about the frequent usage of network terminology. As Mark H. Moore explains in the concluding chapter, the network metaphor is stretched in a number of different directions. Moore states, “‘Networked government’ is a term that encompasses (or overlaps with) many other ideas about how government performance might be enhanced through improved coordination among organizations positioned to contribute to the solution of social problems” (p. 191). He goes on to note that these ideas could include “privatization of government services” as well as “collaborative governance.” In the broadest of terms, these ideas do represent some movement away from the archetypal hierarchical bureaucracy. Yet it is not clear why it is analytically useful to regard privatization of services and a collaborative approach to policy making as part of a common trend toward “networked government.” For example, the chapter on state reforms in welfare eligibility by Stephen Goldsmith and Tim Burke presents an example of privatization as networked government. The authors The American Review of Public Administration Volume 40 Number 1 January 2010 119-121