Inclusive Philanthropy: Who Benefits from Philanthropy Matters
posted on: Monday, June 15, 2009
By Julia Craig
This is part of a series of postings that takes a deeper look at the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View other posts in the series.
Myth #4: Criteria pushes for “racial quotas” in philanthropy.
In a March 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal article subtitled “Activists want to redistribute philanthropic wealth based on racial quotas,” Naomi Schaefer-Riley declared NCRP an enemy of philanthropy before having even read Criteria. Other critics were quick to follow, suggesting that NCRP was calling on grantmakers to appropriate their grants based on the race of the intended beneficiary.
Truth: As we state in Criteria, “By intentionally elevating vulnerable populations in their grantmaking, foundations benefit society and strengthen our democracy. Prioritizing marginalized communities brings about benefits for the public good.”
As Janine Lee, CEO of the Southern Partners Fund, wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “We shouldn’t invest in marginalized communities because it’s politically correct or because public subsidies obligate us to do so. We should invest in disadvantaged communities because it has the greatest impact on the things we care about.”
In other words, if grantmakers focus on the “general public” in their grantmaking and believe that the benefits will trickle down to those on the margins, they may have some impact. However, if grantmakers utilize targeted universalism, which provides a much deeper understanding of diversity to include other bases for marginalization than just race, they will more likely impact not only the targeted constituencies but the broader public.
Criterion I: Values states: A grantmaker practicing Philanthropy at Its Best serves the public good by contributing to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.
- Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.
- Provides at least 25 percent of its grant dollars for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society.
It is the first benchmark in the chapter that has drawn the most ire from critics. This criterion is born of a belief that who benefits from philanthropy matters, and that foundations could be doing so much more to be inclusive in their grantmaking.
NCRP’s research found that just one in three grant dollars is intended to benefit disadvantaged communities. We made our definition as inclusive as possible given the data from the Foundation Center. In total, 11 groups comprised what we call marginalized communities in Criteria: economically disadvantaged; ethnic and racial minorities; women and girls; people with AIDS; people with disabilities; aging, elderly and senior citizens; immigrants and refugees; crime or abuse victims; offenders and ex-offenders; LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning) and; single parents.
That so few philanthropic dollars are intended to benefit such a broad group of constituents has shocked some, and well it should. Philanthropy serves the public good by focusing on those with the least wealth, opportunity and power. Previous posts by Aaron Dorfman on Michael Eisner’s recent gift to the California Institute of the Arts, and by Yna Moore on women’s health demonstrate that such inclusive approach to grantmaking can be done across the various issues and causes that different foundations care about.
Given the growing income inequality in the U.S., the changing demographic landscape and the growing wealth disparity between whites and non-whites, there is so much that needs to be done. And we in philanthropy can do better. Criteria challenges grantmakers to think beyond linear problem-solving models and utilize systems thinking, which views causation as reciprocal, mutual and cumulative. NCRP’s exploration of targeted universalism and systems thinking provides grantmakers with tools to increase their impact on the complicated social problems they set out to address.
In addition to the 11 marginalized groups identified in Criteria, what are the others constituent communities that don’t see the benefits from philanthropy? Do you have a story to share of inclusive grantmaking at work?
Labels: Debunking Criteria Myths, marginalized communities, Philanthropy at Its Best, Philanthropy's role in society, social inclusion, values
By Julia Craig
This is part of a series of postings that takes a deeper look at the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View other posts in the series.
Myth #4: Criteria pushes for “racial quotas” in philanthropy.
In a March 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal article subtitled “Activists want to redistribute philanthropic wealth based on racial quotas,” Naomi Schaefer-Riley declared NCRP an enemy of philanthropy before having even read Criteria. Other critics were quick to follow, suggesting that NCRP was calling on grantmakers to appropriate their grants based on the race of the intended beneficiary.
Truth: As we state in Criteria, “By intentionally elevating vulnerable populations in their grantmaking, foundations benefit society and strengthen our democracy. Prioritizing marginalized communities brings about benefits for the public good.”
As Janine Lee, CEO of the Southern Partners Fund, wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “We shouldn’t invest in marginalized communities because it’s politically correct or because public subsidies obligate us to do so. We should invest in disadvantaged communities because it has the greatest impact on the things we care about.”
In other words, if grantmakers focus on the “general public” in their grantmaking and believe that the benefits will trickle down to those on the margins, they may have some impact. However, if grantmakers utilize targeted universalism, which provides a much deeper understanding of diversity to include other bases for marginalization than just race, they will more likely impact not only the targeted constituencies but the broader public.
Criterion I: Values states: A grantmaker practicing Philanthropy at Its Best serves the public good by contributing to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.
- Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.
- Provides at least 25 percent of its grant dollars for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society.
It is the first benchmark in the chapter that has drawn the most ire from critics. This criterion is born of a belief that who benefits from philanthropy matters, and that foundations could be doing so much more to be inclusive in their grantmaking.
NCRP’s research found that just one in three grant dollars is intended to benefit disadvantaged communities. We made our definition as inclusive as possible given the data from the Foundation Center. In total, 11 groups comprised what we call marginalized communities in Criteria: economically disadvantaged; ethnic and racial minorities; women and girls; people with AIDS; people with disabilities; aging, elderly and senior citizens; immigrants and refugees; crime or abuse victims; offenders and ex-offenders; LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning) and; single parents.
That so few philanthropic dollars are intended to benefit such a broad group of constituents has shocked some, and well it should. Philanthropy serves the public good by focusing on those with the least wealth, opportunity and power. Previous posts by Aaron Dorfman on Michael Eisner’s recent gift to the California Institute of the Arts, and by Yna Moore on women’s health demonstrate that such inclusive approach to grantmaking can be done across the various issues and causes that different foundations care about.
Given the growing income inequality in the U.S., the changing demographic landscape and the growing wealth disparity between whites and non-whites, there is so much that needs to be done. And we in philanthropy can do better. Criteria challenges grantmakers to think beyond linear problem-solving models and utilize systems thinking, which views causation as reciprocal, mutual and cumulative. NCRP’s exploration of targeted universalism and systems thinking provides grantmakers with tools to increase their impact on the complicated social problems they set out to address.
In addition to the 11 marginalized groups identified in Criteria, what are the others constituent communities that don’t see the benefits from philanthropy? Do you have a story to share of inclusive grantmaking at work?
Labels: Debunking Criteria Myths, marginalized communities, Philanthropy at Its Best, Philanthropy's role in society, social inclusion, values
posted by Julia Craig at
9:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home