Interview with Denise Gray-Felder, Director of the Communications Division at The Rockefeller Foundation

Denise is the officer responsible for the Foundation's internal and external communications, public information, public policy communications, reputation management and stakeholder relations world wide. Prior to joining Rockefeller, Denise worked for AT and T on a range of communication issues and was also responsible for corporate diversity concerns including sexual harassment and equal representation for people of colour. Her wide community communication experience includes the United Way, Michigan Criminal Justice System and the Model Cities Programme. Denise is a past National President of Women in Communications Inc in the USA.

The Communication Initiative: What is the history of The Rockefeller Foundation and communication?

Denise Gray-Felder: The Foundation has had a communications function for nearly 40 years. Historically, the focus has been on publications, producing pieces that explain the work of the Foundation in printed fashion. Three and half, almost four years ago, when I was hired, the Foundation made a conscious decision that they wanted a different kind of communications presence. The environment for this kind of work, and philanthropy in general, was shifting and is continuing to shift. So we are now considered more of a partner in helping to make our programme work more effective – using communications for better programmes.

CI: What was the rationale for that changing role?

DG: If you look at other organisations, particularly in the private sector, communications were far more sophisticated: more in tune with customer and audience needs; more research driven; more of a strategic focus; all of the things that the market place demands if you are to be successful. Philanthropy and in particular foundations seemed to be out-of-step with that approach. Peter Goldmark [previous President of The Rockefeller Foundation] saw and knew that. He perceived an opportunity to try to make some changes.

CI: How would you characterise your work at the moment – what are the main elements?

DG: We do strategic communications – by which I mean the process of identifying target audiences, listening to their needs, determining what they are able and ready to receive in terms of information, creating that information, disseminating it, evaluating it's effectiveness, making adjustments and trying the process all over again. We focus our strategic communications in three areas.

The first is what you might expect from the Communication Department of any international organisation – maintaining and enhancing the image and reputation of the Foundation. We do that through media relations, the annual report, generic publications, promotion and publicity of activities, fellowships, competitions and other activities that the Foundation undertakes. In that piece of work we are also beginning to think about how about how we might more proactively tell the story of the contributions of a foundation like ours to world society. If you were to stop someone on the corner of 5th Avenue and 37th Street [in New York city where the Rockefeller Foundation is based] and ask them what a hospital does they will be able to give you a description. If you stop them and ask them what a foundation does they would probably scratch their head and look puzzled. So, we as a major foundation player, need to be more assertive in explaining to the world community what we are about.

The second piece of work we call grantee capacity building. This is where we work with our programme staff and their grantees to directly increase the communication capacity of those organisations to which we grant funds. We work with them to help them develop their own communication approaches and strategies, training them in the strategic communications process, presentation skills, media relations and how to do interviews. In the case of grantees in the area of female education this includes how you do newsletters, message development, identifying your audiences, reaching them and all that kind of stuff. The need among non-profits to develop their expertise and capacity in communications, particularly outside of North America and Europe, is very great We work with about 20-25 grantees in that area.

The third piece of work is on communication and social change. This is much less defined, more flexible and evolving. We are actually hoping through a variety of entry points to figure out what are the best, the more effective, ways to use communication to accelerate the kind of social change that a Foundation like ours works in. There is a research component, practical component and then there is the network that we have created and hope to maintain with the people that were at the Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Study and Conference Center on Lake Como in Italy. This group which will reconvene in Cape Town in October and is engaged in an electronic conference at the moment.

CI: How does the communications and social change component of your work link with the overall programming initiatives of the Foundation – how do you link it with the programming people?

DG: Some of the programmes they fund and support can be interesting case studies which we can look at and analyse. However, the more direct link is putting what we learn into practice on a regular basis in our counseling – where we counsel our programme people on ways that we might create communication strategies for a particular social issue. So, say that through the direct communication and social change work we have learned about PULSAR – community radio. We have learned all of these wonderful things and have these cases that we can look at and analyse. Now we can go to our female education people and say ‘let's look at ways we can integrate community radio into our programming strategy'. So they might decide to put some money into building capacity for community radio or encourage their grantees to develop programming directly with community radio or get some of the communication people actively involved in the work that the grant is funding. It is informing the knowledge of those active in communications so that we in turn can turn around and counsel other programme colleagues.

CI: You have a particular interest in the issue of girls and education in Africa – what has been learned from the work in that area?

DG: The number one thing that has been learned from a communication stand-point, particularly for a Foundation that tends to take a science approach, is that we tend to underestimate the cultural influences, the importance of reaching people in ways that they are prepared to receive the information. This sounds very basic and very logical but when it comes to implementing, often times it does not happen. The notion of not parachuting in information is a lesson that we constantly have to reinforce. In this area the tendency is to look at the problem – in this case 65% of girls in Africa are not in school. So a Foundation like ours and many of our grantees will say the solution is to enroll them all in schools, build more schools! Frankly it is not that simple. The rush to bring in a solution without really working to understand and to operate within the cultural norms is a clear lesson that we are learning. We have learned that it is critical to work with the Ministry of Education in a country and with headmasters and headmistresses in schools. But it is equally important to figure out ways to reach those village elders or influential women in a particular village who are promulgating the cultural norm that, if you are a girl, school is not worth your time.

CI: Any particular example of where that approach is being done, and done well?

DG: In Ghana, the Ghana Chapter of the Forum for African Women Educationalists has done some interesting things. In their Chapter they have teachers, headmistresses, policy makers, the Department of Education and other female staff in Education Ministry offices around the country. But they have also set up among their membership a Council of Mullahs and other religious leaders who they work with as – they wouldn't use this word but I call them 'evangelists' for female education. They have gotten people who you might think are historically opponents to female education and have appealed to these people and made them a part of the Chapter and equipped them to be evangelists for female education. So, these men, male religious leaders, are actually crossing the country talking to their colleagues, basically reassuring them that it is OK to send the girls in their community to school and what the value of education will be for these girls. It is really fascinating to sit in these sessions and watch these guys. My favorite example is talking to this Mullah who says 'you know I really shouldn't be talking to you because I am not meant to talk to women, but here is what I think'. Talk about changing social norms.

CI: Turning to the communication and social change process which you began at Bellagio. This is a network and series of meetings with a group of people around the world looking at communication and social change issues and strategies – what prompted it and where do you hope it might lead?

DG: I am not sure there is one answer to what prompted it. I was trying to put a focus on the Rockefeller Foundation Department of Communication's work that spoke to the product, the business that we are in. I kept having these conversations with people who would keep coming back to the notion that the product the Rockefeller Foundation produces is social change. Having spent most of my life promoting products I thought, well, I know how to do this. Once you have figured out what the product is and what the attributes are then there is a methodology for doing that. I was trying to figure out what is the equivalent methodology in foundations, if social change is our product. It seemed to me that there was not an easy way to do it.

If you think about the continuum of social change you are working on. At the left end of the scale, the zero point, is where you are moving from. The far right of the scale (100 per cent) is the point where you're headed. If you think about this as an ongoing process, there are times when communications can be most effective at various points on the continuum. We want to learn more about where to enter [with communications] and why – and to evaluate why it works. When can we most effectively interject communications into the change continuum? So, what prompted the Bellagio conference and the subsequent setting up of the Network is the need to understand more about the business and what it is all about. This was not going to be a useful conversation if those of us who saw the light sat around and talked. We deliberately set out to get some social activists who would not even consider that they were doing communication work.

CI: Where is the Bellagio process at now?

DG: Well, it is one year and five months later and I do not think that we have been as successful as we would have dreamed of when we left Bellagio in terms of keeping the level of interaction among people in the network. That is the bad news. The good news is that nobody has said they want out! The network still exists! Now we want to take the next step which seems to be how do we focus on specific actions and how do we move towards really developing training in communication that is useful for development purposes. One of the things we want to do is create these virtual centers of learning. Our hope is that at the next gathering in Cape Town we can begin to develop these Centers – which is not the right word because it may truly be virtual – develop this methodology for training people in grass-roots organisations and NGOs throughout the world to do communication. It is not something that development agencies and foundations tend to focus on.

CI: To broaden out from Rockefeller. When you look at this field, communication and change, communication and development, communication and social change, communication and behaviour change, whatever it is called, what is your critique? Outside of Rockefeller.

DG: Well, even inside! I think that we suffer a lot from a lack of clear terms – just your question itself indicates that. Anyone who uses any of those terms - they mean different things to many people. It would be wonderful in creating this body of knowledge if we could come to a common understanding of what we mean. But when I said that once to one of my former PR colleagues he said – ‘yea, right, just like we have been trying to do in PR for the past 20 years!'. I guess it is somewhat in the nature of the beast. So, one critique is we need to spend some time defining what we are and what we do. In general though the critique is that the field of communication and social change is not even on the radar screen for the average person in the development field. This is certainly true for foundations. Everybody nods and says ‘oh that's great, really interesting' but the reality is that the communication work they do is sending out news releases and putting together annual reports and putting together pretty publications. Now, I have to do some of that but it is not going to fulfill the potential for the contribution of communication to positive gains in people's lives.

CI: That traditional view of communication has held back the field – it is still there – PR comes first?

DG: Yes and you can understand how it has come to that point. When you are faced with people having a real need to get a newsletter out or a pamphlet completed, someone has to get it done.

CI: How do we break through that cycle of the traditional expectations of the communication role holding back the change potential of communication interventions?

DG: We have to be more effective advocates for the value a function brings to the rest of the development field. When we give a grant to an organisation in a country – any country – we would not think of suggesting that they start their work without having an accounting system or some sort of financial structure. We would not give them the money. My dream is that we would not think of giving anyone a grant until they can demonstrate to us what their communication plans are and how they are going to get their messages out, reach their target audiences and get feedback from those target audiences. Within Rockefeller some strides are being made in this direction but it is very very slow. The programme officers have to be convinced that communication is essential to their programming work. Not easy.

CI: Because they are often people from service delivery backgrounds?

DG: They are academics, or social scientists, or physicians and policy wonks – all disciplines that have not been the most progressive supporters of communications. They just don't really see the value – even when they are doing communications work.

CI: To conclude, a couple of really good in-country communication interventions that you have seen – ones that have made you sit up and say ‘yep, that's what we are talking about!

DG: One that is very close to home so it is really not fair to point it out but I will because it is really doing terrific work in terms of advocacy on a legislative front as well as public education, is Tobacco Free Kids, under Bill Novelli's guidance. It really is a comprehensive programme that includes all of the functional sorts of things in good public relations and promotion - social marketing, public service advertising and media relations. They have done a really good job of creating a need in the public's mind that most of us had not really focused on prior to their work - which is that one of the biggest killers by tobacco is children. What a brilliant strategy if you want to take on smoking. Children are a good place to get the public involved. Then there is The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. Three or four years ago when the notion that we could indeed have a vaccine for AIDS was seriously starting to be verbalised among the AIDS research community, I would say to people ‘well, you know we really could have an AIDS vaccine'. Their eyes would roll back in their heads. IAVI has, through low key efforts, pretty much got the message out there that a vaccine is not only possible but essential to stopping the spread of the disease. They have done that pretty much through media relations and community relations – working with constituency groups. The basis for their efforts was working hard to understand the needs and interests of the HIV/AIDS infected community.

CI: Many thanks for your thoughts and insights.

Denise Gray-Felder talked with Warren Feek from the Communication Initiative