•  
•  

Launched at the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy in 2009, The Foundation Review is the first peer-reviewed journal about and for philanthropy. We publish leading-edge ideas, results, and knowledge about the philanthropic sector to improve grantmaking and support greater impact. Our readership comprises foundation leaders and staff, philanthropic practitioners and consultants, and academic researchers.

Abstracts of up to 250 words are invited for Volume 19, Issue 2 of The Foundation Review on the themed issue of Policy Advocacy.

• - Submit abstracts to by August 7, 2026.
• - If a full paper is invited, it will be due October 16,2026, for publication in Summer 2027.

Theme Overview

The political era we are in is testing longstanding assumptions about how policy change happens, who drives it, and what counts as winning. For philanthropy, which has invested heavily in policy advocacy as a lever for systems change, this moment raises questions the field needs to confront.

Foundations have funded think tanks, organizing infrastructure, narrative change, coalition building, legal advocacy, and policy entrepreneurs—betting that strategic advocacy investments can shift the policies, rules, and resources that govern systems on climate, health, education, human services, and more.

But the political landscape has changed dramatically, and approaches that worked in one era may not translate to another. Among the questions this issue seeks to explore: What does it mean to "win" in today's political environment? What strategies are actually working, and for whom? How do philanthropy and its partners need to think and work differently to be effective?

This moment also calls for fresh thinking about civil society itself—how organizations and movements are working, what forms of capacity and connection are proving most durable, and what philanthropy can learn from that experience. The relationship between philanthropic strategy and civil society practice runs in both directions, and this issue welcomes work that examines each.

Evaluation has an important role to play too, but it also needs to evolve. Too often, advocacy evaluation has asked technical questions—did the policy pass, did the coalition come together—while leaving deeper questions on the table: Are the strategies philanthropy is funding well-suited to a changing political context? Are they building the kind of democratic capacity needed to sustain policy wins over time?

This issue of The Foundation Review invites authors to take up these questions—bringing evidence, experience, and honest reflection to bear on what is working, what is not, and what philanthropy and its partners should do differently.

Topics that Articles Might Address Include:

1. What does it mean to "win" in today's environment, and how should philanthropy think differently about the relationship between policy victories, community power, and the durability and legitimacy of policy change?
2. What does durable policy change actually require, and how should philanthropy think differently about the relationship between winning policy fights and building the capacity to sustain and implement them?
3. What are advocates learning on the front lines about what works, and what do they need from philanthropy and evaluators that they are not currently getting?
4. How does evaluation of policy advocacy need to evolve to be more relevant, more honest, and more useful to the people doing this work in a rapidly changing context?
5. What can U.S.-based philanthropy and civil society learn from actors working in other political contexts, including more constrained environments, about adaptive and durable advocacy strategies?

Abstracts are solicited in four categories (authors do not need to specify a category for their submission):

• Results: Papers in this category generally report on findings from evaluations of foundation-funded work. Papers should include a description of the theory of change (logic model, program theory), a description of the grantmaking strategy, the evaluation methodology, the results, and a narrative discussion. The discussion should focus on what has been learned both about the content (e.g., what has been learned about communications strategies) and about grantmaking and other foundation roles (convening, etc.). We especially seek papers that describe “hard lessons” – efforts that were not successful in achieving the intended outcomes in the timeframe envisioned.
• Tools: Papers in this category should describe tools useful for foundation staff or boards. By “tool” we mean a systematic, replicable methodology intended for a specific purpose. For example, a protocol to assess community or organizational readiness or standardized facilitation methods would be considered tools. The actual tool should be included in the article whenever practical. The paper should describe the rationale for the tool, how it was developed, and available evidence of its usefulness.
• Sector: Papers in this category address issues confronted by the philanthropic sector as a whole, such as diversity, accountability, etc.
• Reflective Practice: Papers in this category rely on the knowledge and experience of the authors, rather than on formal evaluation methods or designs. In these cases, it is because of their perspective about broader issues, rather than specific initiatives, that the article is valuable.

Submissions should emphasize the practical applications of the findings. Reviewers will be evaluation professionals, foundation program and evaluation staff and board members, and other experts in the content area. Reviews of the full paper will be double blind. Authors can view full manuscript specifications and standards before submitting an abstract at https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/tfr/for_authors.html.

Book Reviews: The Foundation Review publishes reviews of relevant books. Please contact the editor to discuss submitting a review. Reviewers must be free of conflicts of interest.