posted on: Monday, March 24, 2008

By Julia Craig, Program Assistant, NCRP

In this March 3 “The Insider” article in Philanthropy Journal, a “veteran foundation official who wishes to remain anonymous” takes the foundation world to task. According to the author, the large national foundation where s/he works talks out of both sides of its mouth—on one hand, it publicly embraces diversity and open grantmaking practices, while on the other it internally quibbles over how a potential grantee looks and acts and whether potential board members would ever disagree with foundation practices.

"We, in fact, live a weird dual life. We are the kings and queens holding court as people come and plead their cases.

We probably even sit in the big chair or at the end of the table when the people come to see us.

In one of my previous positions, this was particularly loaded with meaning as many of the supplicants were people of color and the foundation professionals were all white.

For grantseekers who did not look and sound like us, we constantly talked in our internal meetings about how well-spoken or well-dressed they were or were not.

And if we detected an "attitude," such as any hint of questioning that we understood their situation, it was an easy way to dismiss people for having passion about their community.

We were really, really scared of that."

When foundation staff members are knowingly complicit in grantmaking practices that discriminate based on appearances and perceptions, philanthropy is failing at its job. The numbers show that there is a dearth of funding for ethnic minorities and for civil rights work. The Insider reveals the disturbing mechanics behind such trends: discrimination is real within the foundation world and it is overt.

Foundation leaders who are more concerned with playing it safe and the weight of tradition than with achieving the foundation’s mission are doing a disservice to the public and to their own organizations. What the author implies but does not explicitly say is that foundation leaders are afraid that funding for organizations addressing systemic social problems or serving traditionally marginalized members of society might succeed, disrupting the power dynamic in this country and resulting in a redistribution of wealth. The analogy of foundation staff as “kings and queens holding court” is particularly disturbing; philanthropy should be about serving the public interest, not satisfying the egos of donors or staff of grantmaking institutions.

Foundation missions tout lofty goals, from reducing poverty and fighting injustice to stopping the spread of disease and supporting social change. Despite such inclusive goals, The Insider claims that during board meetings, leaders at the foundation where s/he works discussed a potential grantee’s dress and mannerisms as a legitimate consideration in the grantmaking process. Foundations often advocate for self-regulation. Unfortunately, in addition to anecdotal evidence from The Insider, foundation behavior shows us that self-regulation is failing. In the past, efforts have been made to develop standards for the sector, but they have fallen short of having a real impact on foundation behavior and amounted to unenforceable suggestions for grantmakers. Glaringly absent from the list of organizations and individuals who have signed on to the Principles for Good Governance, for example, are prominent foundations who are influential philanthropic leaders.

As NCRP moves forward in developing its standards for measuring Philanthropy at its Best, one of the biggest challenges we face is breaking through the traditional culture among foundations. While many foundation trustees undoubtedly have the best of intentions, it is clear that there is a deeply rooted system of discrimination at work. Whether conscious or otherwise, this is a serious barrier to foundations achieving their missions.