A significant proportion of grantmakers who fund public policy, advocacy, and other social-change activities are increasingly moving away from supporting grassroots advocacy and movement-building. Instead, these funders are choosing more "neutral, technocratic, and results-oriented" approaches to social change, like research, policy analysis, and outreach to decision-makers. That's just one conclusion of Social Justice Grantmaking: A Report on Foundation Trends, a new publication by Independent Sector and The Foundation Center. The report is the first comprehensive study to define and measure social justice funding by U.S. foundations. Based on the Foundation Center's grants sample database, the report looks at almost $1.76 billion in 2002 foundation support for social justice activities and compares it with similar support in 1998. The 2002 figure represents more than 13,000 grants and approximately 11 percent of all dollars in the sample. The report defines social justice grantmaking as "the granting of philanthropic contributions to organizations based in the United States and other countries that work for structural change in order to increase the opportunity of those who are the least well off politically, economically, and socially." This definition, which the authors emphasize is a work in progress, was developed by a high-profile advisory committee and based on work by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. According to this definition, social justice giving grew by more than half during the period 1998-2002. It did not quite keep up with the growth in overall grantmaking, though, which rose by nearly two-thirds. The good news is that the number of foundations in the sample making at least one social justice grant grew by more than 9 percent (from 686 to 749). The bad news is that although the number of very large grants increased by more than three-quarters, most social justice grants remained under $50,000. A handful of funders were responsible for the majority of the support. The top 25 foundations in the sample gave more than two-thirds of all the dollars, and just two grantmakers--the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation--gave nearly a quarter of the total $1.8 billion. Perhaps the most interesting section of the report is a summary of interviews researchers conducted with 20 major social justice grantmakers. It was these interviews that revealed a majority of social justice grantmakers increasingly rejecting the language and principles of traditional social-justice philanthropy, which they see as weighed down with too much baggage and ineffective in the "increasingly conservative and decentralized political environment of our times." These are the funders opting for more neutral, policy-oriented approaches. The interviews also illuminated a number of barriers to social justice grantmaking. External obstacles include the current political landscape and a lack of good models for measuring the success of social change efforts. More under grantmakers' control was a perceived incoherence within the field. Among the factors contributing to this lack of cohesion and coordination were funders' divergent objectives; inconsistent and often competing strategies; scattershot capacity-building efforts; short attention spans; and an increasing turnover rate among foundation program officers. Despite a reported rise in formal donor collaboratives, the impact of such efforts is being offset by narrow issue segmentation and by increased insularity among social justice funders. Other trends emerging from the interviews include a movement towards more pragmatic and programmatic funding (which translates into increased project support and decreased core support), less funding of social justice litigation but more investment in leadership development and communications, and an expanding concentration of support for multi-issue groups that have both policy development and base mobilization capacities. In order to build social justice philanthropy, interviewees believe the field must clarify its goals, funders must be less timid about saying what they believe in, and grantmakers must reach out to stakeholders in other fields, such as business and academia. Also helpful would be regular convenings within the field to "strengthen infrastructure ties and... provide needed space for new ideas, projects, and relationships." The report includes numerous other breakouts and analyses, as well as lists of the top funders in each of 14 sub-fields and in-depth profiles of 26 leading social justice foundations. A four-page executive summary can be downloaded for free from the Foundation Center website. The full report can also be purchased online.