Policies
Foundation's Relationship With Its Grantees

Grantees at Risk

Introduction
The Foundation provides support to an array of groups and individuals working in the United States and throughout the world to further our mission to help foster lasting improvement in the human condition. This work can occur in circumstances in which political, ideological, religious, or social differences create the potential for a grantee to be at risk. This danger can take many forms: physical, such as incarceration or mob actions; psychological, which might include increased pressure from government or other actors; or financial, such as the threat of penalties or withdrawal of support.

This policy discusses the rationale for the Foundation to take action when a grantee finds itself at risk as a result of grant-related activities. It also presents a framework for arriving at a decision about whether or not such action is warranted, and suggests the composition of a standing group charged with considering such issues. As the framework makes clear, there are a number of issues to be weighed in determining an appropriate course of action. Except in truly exceptional circumstances, however, for the Foundation to act the threat to the grantee must arise from work or activities related to the purposes for which the Foundation's grant was made.

The Foundation has faced surprisingly few situations in which it has been asked, or in which staff members have concluded, that special help should be provided to a grantee in harm's way. Yet such matters do arise, so it is prudent for the Foundation to have a procedure for considering under what circumstances the Foundation should take action, and what action, if any, might be appropriate.

It should be emphasized at the outset that the Foundation has no legal obligation to provide continuing support or to take other action when a grantee is threatened in one fashion or another. There are sound policy and legal reasons why we should not obligate ourselves under such circumstances. So such steps, if taken, should come after careful analysis of each situation.

The Foundation has a clear interest in the freedom of speech and the physical integrity of grantees. The Foundation's mission depends to a great extent on the existence of a healthy and vibrant not-for-profit sector in the United States and the continued growth of civil society abroad, represented by non-governmental organizations and dynamic individuals. These organizations and individuals have made significant contributions to addressing issues that are important to the Foundation. Actions that threaten the vitality of the not-for-profit sector or the continued growth of civil society - such as suppression of speech or freedom of association, physical threats, or other human rights abuses - also threaten the capacity of the Foundation to carry out its mission. So, there may be compelling reasons to conclude that action is appropriate when a grantee is at risk, despite the fact that we are not legally bound to act and beyond the understandable moral impulse to help a person or organization in need. This is particularly so when the threat is sufficiently grave so as to impact the ability of civil society to act in the future.

A Framework for Action
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to think through and determine in advance a course of action for every possible situation in which a grantee may be at risk. Each case requires consideration of many different factors. This process should be guided by two main questions: 1) Is action by the Foundation appropriate? and 2), if action is appropriate, what should it be? It can be as damaging to do too much as to do too little.  The framework is designed to encourage flexibility, rather then be prescriptive since the facts and circumstances of a given case cannot be predicted. Nor are the possible responses described below intended to be limiting; the facts and circumstances of each case will dictate the suitable response.

Is action by the Foundation appropriate?
There are three main factors that should weigh heavily in arriving at a decision that the Foundation will take action when a grantee is at risk.

1. First is the seriousness of the risk being faced by the grantee. A situation in which a grantee is in threat of immediate physical harm is different from one in which the threat is not physical and will play out over a period of time.

2. Second is the centrality of the grantee's work to the Foundation's mission and reputation.  If the Foundation has a direct interest in the outcome of the action because of the potential for damage to the Foundation's capacity to support other work on a particular issue or in a particular region, action may well be justified.

3. Third is whether the Foundation is the only source of help. If others have a stronger interest, it may well be for them to act or take the lead in action.

These three considerations should be taken into account in arriving at a decision about whether or not action by the Foundation is appropriate. At one extreme might be a case in which harassment involves no physical threat to a grantee doing work judged not central to our mission; there are multiple funders. The other extreme might present imminent danger to a grantee without whom an entire area of the Foundation's work would be crippled and the Foundation's reputation would be damaged to the extent that it would be hard to do related work in the future.

What action should be taken?
Given the conclusion that some level of foundation action in support of a grantee in trouble is called for, there is a continuum of actions the Foundation could take, ranging from quietly providing support through our contacts and relationships to very publicly providing funds and other types of support. Clearly, the level of action should reflect the level of risk. Working quietly behind the scenes, for example, might include alerting the appropriate authorities or providing support to intermediary organizations that are responding to the threat. Working in a more visible way might include providing legal support or moving swiftly to physically remove people from danger.

Public pressure should be used only when other available means of addressing the problem have been rejected or exhausted. The Foundation, through the work of our grantees, has earned a solid reputation. The MacArthur name can be as valuable a currency as the funds we grant. We should not underestimate our capacity to work effectively behind the scenes using our contacts, relationships, and other resources .
A visual representation of the decision to act coupled with the level of action might look like the following:

An issue management group
When a situation concerning a grantee in trouble arises, the first step in taking action should be the prompt convening of an appropriate group of staff members and others to analyze the situation and recommend a course of action. Such a group might include a small number of standing members, with others added as the situation dictates.

Standing members:
President
Vice Presidents of HCD or GSS (or both depending on the situation)
Vice President for Public Affairs (or the Associate Vice President for Public Affairs)
General Counsel

Additional members:
Those with the most direct knowledge of the situation.
Those with special knowledge or skills that would be useful (language skill, cultural understanding etc.).

Procedures
The Foundation staff should be alert to the fact that an issue management group exists to consider cases of grantees in harm's way. A staff member, upon becoming aware of a situation should alert his/her supervisor who would alert the area vice president. The vice president would be responsible for convening the standing members of the group and any additional members appropriate to the situation. The Foundation should identify, and have available contact information for, organizations (such as Human Rights Watch) that would be helpful in given situations, particularly in countries where the Foundation operates.

Conclusion

This discussion and diagram of a framework for action should be understood as only a rough guide, for at least a couple of reasons. First, there may be situations where the severity of the risk is such, that immediate aggressive action may be needed. Second, while severity of the problem being faced is a continuum, the number of possible actions at each level is also numerous. For example, the amount of financial support that might be provided can vary widely and there are many different ways to exercise quiet diplomacy. Finally, decisions about whether or not to take action and the type of action to take will most likely be a moving target. The issue management group should meet regularly during the crisis period to update the situation and to act, or not, based on new information as it becomes available.