PORTLAND, Ore. - The biggest national environmental groups get the most charitable dollars, while important conservation projects taken on by smaller groups often are overlooked. This finding is one of several in a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

It says people at the local level are most likely to be those most affected by environment and climate challenges in their area, but only 15 percent of foundation grant money for environmental work goes to grassroots organizations addressing those issues. Aaron Dorfman, NCRP executive director, urges the charitable funders to change that.

"They've got the freedom to take risks and experiment. Foundations are supposed to be society's 'passing gear,' to really invest in things that might not attract support otherwise. We just don't see that happening."

The report says half of all environmental grants are awarded to large national organizations with budgets of $5 million or more. Sharing the wealth with smaller groups can result in bigger "wins" overall for the environment, says Dorfman.

Dorfman says what he calls the 'funding ecosystem' is out of balance, when big-money philanthropists focus mostly on what's happening in Congress with environmental and climate-change issues. He hopes the report opens donors' eyes.

"We hope that it sparks imagination, and that it encourages people to shift more dollars to grassroots environmental efforts that are really connected to communities on the ground - and that that leads to a shift in the policy environment, on environmental issues."

The report suggests that at least 20 percent of a foundation's grant dollars go to community-based groups helping underserved populations and 25 percent to grassroots organizing and advocacy. It points out that many potential grantees exist: Nearly 29,000 public charities work on environmental and climate-related causes in the United States.

The report, "Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders," is at www.ncrp.org.



get more stories like this via email

By Claire Elise Thompson for Grist.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

When Lois Brink’s kids were in elementary school, she remembers being struck by how uninviting their schoolyard was. She described it as “scorched earth” — little more than a dirt field coated in “I don’t know how many decades of weed retardant” and some aging play equipment. But Brink, a landscape architect and professor at the University of Colorado Denver, didn’t just see a problem. She saw fertile ground for a solution. Over the next dozen years, she helped lead a transformation of nearly 100 elementary school grounds across Denver into more vibrant, greener spaces, dubbed “Learning Landscapes.”

Public schools alone cover about 2 million acres of land in the U.S. Although comprehensive data is hard to come by, the “scorched earth” that Brink witnessed is the norm in many places — according to the Trust for Public Land, around 36 percent of the nation’s public school students attend school in what would be considered a heat island. And as with green spaces writ large, a dearth of schoolyard trees and other vegetation tends to be most common in lower-income areas and Black and brown neighborhoods.

“It really makes sense to think about how those spaces can serve well-being, development, learning, and social cohesion — and also environmental justice and resilience goals that can help a community thrive,” said Priya Cook, director of green schoolyards and communities at Children & Nature Network, one organization working to advance this goal. The org recently published a report looking at how the benefits of green schoolyards translate into economic value, focusing on Denver as a case study and using data from Brink’s work.

Incorporating factors such as school attendance and academic scores, carbon sequestration and rainwater retention, and overall community health and public safety, the report estimated that communities can reap a more than $3 return for every $1 invested in green schoolyards.

In Denver, Learning Landscapes schools saw increases in math and writing scores and overall school performance (a measure combining factors such as academic scores and graduation, dropout, and participation rates). And although this research is not definitive, the study stated that “if green schoolyards can improve student achievement in elementary school, they likely have a positive impact on high school graduation rates.” That in turn cascades into improved employment outcomes, and increased tax revenue. The study also concluded that benefits are amplified if green schoolyards are made available to the public. For instance, previous research has shown that property values increase by as much as 5 percent when the properties are within 500 feet of a park.

For Cook, translating the benefits of greening schoolyards into a monetary value is about more than helping schools think about how to spend their limited budgets – it’s about opening up new avenues of funding. “School districts are notoriously underfunded,” Cook noted. “And this is a strategy that benefits all of society. And so the financing needs to come from organizations in community development, economic development, public health — these sectors that are thinking about the whole child, whole community, society-level outcomes.”

After Brink’s aha moment at her own kids’ school, she decided to get her graduate students at the university involved in designing a better alternative. Realizing the school district didn’t have money to implement their vision, they raised the funds themselves to install a pilot at Bromwell Elementary, the school her kids attended. “Then we realized, when you raise the money for something, the district is much more willing to maybe do things nontraditional and rethink what a schoolyard could look like as a civic space,” Brink said.

That approach got the school district on board for expanding the initiative to other schools. In 2000, Brink formed the Learning Landscape alliance, a public-private partnership with support from the city, local nonprofits, and contractors that were willing to donate pro bono services to keep costs down. Over the next three years, they worked with communities to design and convert 22 schoolyards in Denver’s industrial crescent.

“What we were trying to convince the district of is that each schoolyard needs to be a total transformation,” Brink said. Each project was unique, both in its design and in the process it took to implement it. For instance, Brink recalls at one school, many of the parents happened to work in the landscape industry, so they volunteered their time alongside the contractors, laying irrigation and sod. At another school that primarily served Latino students, Brink said, the team designed raised planters that mimicked Aztec geometry.

In 2003, and then again in 2008, the Denver Public School Board proposed, and citywide voters passed, a ballot measure to set aside funding to expand the conversions throughout the city. “You had a city where 60 percent of the voters didn’t have children. And yet this passed overwhelmingly every time,” Brink said. “It was just really, really great to see that sort of level of engagement.”

All told, between 2000 and 2012, the Learning Landscapes initiative converted every single public elementary school campus in Denver to a green schoolyard, totaling 306 acres.

And all the while, Brink has been collecting data. In December of last year, she prepared a report for Children & Nature Network analyzing some of the key takeaways from Learning Landscapes (that formed the basis of its study on the economic benefits of green schoolyards more broadly). Among other impacts, the report noted a 7 percent reduction in student mobility (the rate at which students transfer in and out of a school), a $1.3 million boost in state funding thanks to increased student enrollment, and 1,284 tons of carbon sequestered each year across all the green schoolyards.

With all the benefits of green schoolyards, for students, communities, and the environment, it may seem like a no-brainer solution. Still, there are barriers to converting every single schoolyard into a green space — a vision that Children & Nature Network hopes to help realize by 2050, Priya Cook said.

Cost is one obvious one. But even more than the actual dollars, Cook said, it’s often the initiative it takes to bring together diverse stakeholders to make a project happen — what Brink and her students did when they scrapped together the resources to implement their vision in Denver, through a combination of volunteer labor, pro bono services, and public and nonprofit dollars.

Ironically, Cook noted, a significant barrier to finding the funding for green schoolyards lies in one of their greatest strengths: They’re a multifaceted solution. “Markets tend to underinvest in strategies that produce broad benefits to society,” she said. For instance, if a school, nonprofit, or other funder wanted to make changes to prioritize students’ mental health, it might invest its limited dollars in counseling programs or other targeted interventions, rather than thinking about something like nature access — even though nature access does improve mental health, in addition to other benefits.

“We have to think differently to pick multi-solving interventions,” Cook said.

Still, she’s hopeful that the growing body of research on green schoolyards will continue to bring more stakeholders to the fold.

“I think there’s absolutely more hunger for it,” she said, “and people do it in really ingenious ways. Some places have multimillion dollar investments in a single site, and some places find small grants and they do a lot of surface installations that change kids’ experience every day.”


Claire Elise Thompson wrote this article for Grist.


get more stories like this via email

An update to the Northwest Forest Plan is expected soon, and Washingtonians who enjoy the outdoors are being urged to follow the process closely.

While the plan doesn't specifically mention recreation, the Northwest Forest Plan is the land management plan for millions of acres of forest in the region.

Michael DeCramer, policy and planning manager with the Washington Trails Association, says the U.S. Forest Service should keep in mind the people hiking trails within the plan area.

"Outdoor recreation is the primary way in which the public interacts with those lands. So, this management plan is key to assuring that there's continued conservation of resources, but also opportunities to recreate and enjoy the forests in the Pacific Northwest," he said.

DeCramer added the outdoor recreation economy is also important to the region. It generates more than $26 billion annually in Washington, according to the Outdoor Industry Association.

The Northwest Forest Plan was adopted in 1994 for management of forests in Washington, Oregon and northern California. The U.S. Forest Service is set to release a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the plan amendment next month.

The Forest Service plans to address is the impact of climate change on the region, among other factors.

Betsy Robblee, conservation and advocacy director for Washington-state based group The Mountaineers, said increasingly frequent wildfires are hurting trails. She contributed recommendations with the federal advisory committee on the plan amendment to address this.

"Restore recreation sites after climate-related events and reopen them to the public. One thing that we're seeing is more lengthy closures of areas after wildfire," she explained. "Places can be closed for a number of years for public access."

Robblee encourages people who enjoy recreation to follow along as the Northwest Forest Plan amendment is released, because there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on it.

"It's easy for folks to think, 'Oh, this is all about logging or wildlife, and it doesn't affect me.' But it definitely affects people's recreation experience and the places that they love and care about," she added.


get more stories like this via email

From power outages to burnt farmland, North Dakota is coming to grips with the impact of several large wildfires that are linked to at least two deaths. The fires intensified this past weekend around the western half of the state, with crews working in recent days to get them under control. Gov. Doug Burgum said when they get the final numbers, it is possible the fires will have consumed as many as 50,000 acres of farmland.

Daryl Ritchison, North Dakota State Climatologist, said windy and dry conditions fueled the devastation, adding that there's no doubt the agricultural community was hard hit.

"Farmers lost cattle. Farmers lost grazing land. Farmers lost houses. Farmers lost their fencing," he continued.

The North Dakota Farmers Union reminds ranchers who lost cattle, pasture and equipment in the fires that the federal Farm Service Agency has resources to help them recover. Information can be found on the USDA website. Meanwhile, the governor has said this could be one of the worst groups of fires in state history when factoring in acreage.

Ritchison suggested it's too early to link this disaster to climate change, noting the state's history with prairie fires, especially this time of year, and added that if there is a silver lining, early warnings to farmers - to pause their fall harvest - appeared to be effective.

"If there's any good in this, I think it could have potentially been even worse considering the wind gusts up to 60, 70 miles per hour, how dry the conditions were, the low relative humidity," he explained.

Globally, scientists say climate change is one of several factors as to why wildfires are becoming more destructive and difficult to contain. It's prompting more calls for state and local governments to become better prepared and alert the public ahead of time. A recent report found that preparation lapses hindered evacuations during the deadly Maui fires in Hawaii last year.