posted on: Tuesday, January 26, 2010

By Andrew Grant-Thomas

If you’re reading Keeping a Close Eye… you probably don’t need to be cautioned against the rosy view that Barack Obama’s election ushered in racial and social nirvana. Nevertheless, over the last year and more the counterpoints have come, fast and furious: the disparate impacts of our credit, lending and foreclosure crises; the ongoing economic recession; the debate over health care, now seemingly doomed to an unhappy ending; the hullabaloo over Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” claim, the “Birthers” phenomenon… on and on.

Just yesterday a friend sent a link to an article about a guy named Moose who wants to start a whites-only – actually, for “natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race” – basketball league in Augusta, Georgia. It’s not about racism, says Moose: “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch? … we should have the right to move ourselves in a better direction.” Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

Sadly, in this era of continued deep structural or systemic racism, of pervasive implicit biases even among folks who sincerely mean better, of the marginalization of efforts to help the marginalized, and their own marginalization even within such efforts, the Mooses of the world may be the least of our worries. Sound hopeless? It’s not But here’s the million-dollar question:

How do we proceed?

On March 11-13, 2010 in Columbus Ohio, the staff of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and some 600+ of your fellow advocates, activists, scholars, students, spoken-word artists and just-plain-folks of all stripes will engage all this and more at our conference on Transforming Race: Crisis and Opportunity in the Age of Obama. Similar to NCRP’s work under Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project (GCIP), our work is organized around three themes critical to equity and social justice work: Racial Dynamics and Systems Thinking; Race Talk; and Race, Recession, and Recovery. Click this link for more on these themes and to peek at the agenda.

Transforming Race will begin with two pre-conference training sessions for social justice workers – one on “opportunity communities” by the Kirwan Institute, and one on applying systems thinking to race. The second piece is likely familiar to readers of NCRP’s Criteria. The Values chapter, co-authored by Kirwan’s executive director, john a. powell, talks about the concept of “targeted universalism.” Targeted universalism might sound like an oxymoron; it’s not. It’s about ensuring that efforts to meet the needs of our most vulnerable populations are sensitive to the particulars of how they are situated within the web of policies. Institutions, and systems that shape opportunities for us all. Ultimately, it is about creating a more socially inclusive society in which we all fare better.

At a time when major foundations like the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Wood Funds of Chicago, Funders for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Issues, and many other racial justice workers are adopting structural racism and systems thinking as an analytical framework, it is critical that we look to systems work in other arenas (business, environmentalism, engineering, medicine) to inform and deepen our own approaches.

That’s what Transforming Race is really about – taking lessons learned from all sectors to improve practice and life opportunities for the most marginalized, and to build a more just, equitable, and sustainable future for all of us. Like NCRP, of which Kirwan is a member, we see philanthropy playing a crucial role in enhancing the common good by supporting nonprofit advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement through grantmaking. These strategies have shown tremendous “return on investments” for foundations, while addressing the needs of our diverse communities.

Registration is open! We hope to see you in March!

Andrew Grant-Thomas is director of Transforming Race, and deputy director of the Kirwan Institute at The Ohio State University.

posted on: Thursday, December 03, 2009

By Kevin Laskowski

More than forty D.C.-area leaders in philanthropy gathered Tuesday to discuss the new book Change Philanthropy: Candid Stories of Foundations Maximizing Results Through Social Justice (Jossey-Bass, 2009). Authored by Alicia Korten Epstein, the book features case studies of foundations and organizations working successfully for change, bringing to life “the real challenges and exhilarations of grantmaking that seeks to address critical social issues of our day.”

Deepak Bhargava, Executive Director of the Center for Community Change (CCC), opened the event to explain why the Center sought to publish the book.

“Real change always comes from expanded democracy,” he said. “Now what is the role of philanthropy in this? The challenge for us is to move beyond charity and give life to democracy.”

He noted the mounting challenges before the sector, including economic instability and inequality and climate change, joking, “Not to put too much pressure on you, but the fate of our society and planet hang in the balance.”

Marjorie Fine, Director of CCC’s Linchpin Campaign and project director for Change Philanthropy, moderated a panel discussion with Korten and representatives from two of the book’s featured philanthropies: Dave Beckwith, Executive Director of the Needmor Fund, and Christine Doby, Program Officer at the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Korten outlined “Six Principles of High Impact Giving,” lessons learned from the more than 200 interviews that resulted in the book:

1. Develop a theory of change.
2. Match your goals to your resources.
3. Use all your resources.
4. Know your potential grantees.
5. Amplify grantee voices.
6. Evaluate work.

She noted how these might be principles for any grantmaker looking to be more effective. However, she said, the case studies in the book featured foundations who brought an additional “equity lens” to their work.

Beckwith related how such a lens lead the Stranahan family, the family behind the Needmor Fund, to fund community organizing and to invest in a socially responsible way.

“I’m from the Needmor Fund and we fund community organizing,” Beckwith said, tracing the development of Needmor’s grantmaking from its beginnings in 1956 through its “two nuns and a fax machine” phase to its current support of local community organizing groups.

“We’d give grants to organizations, and they were basically two nuns and a fax machine,” he said. “We’d give them a grant to raise hell.”

Several events in the 1980s pushed the Stranahans to consider the relationships—and contradictions—between their values, their investments, and their philanthropy. In one instance, The Champion Spark Plug Company, founded by the family, was building a factory in apartheid South Africa, and a shareholder resolution had been introduced to have Champion adopt the Sullivan Principles. The question was raised: how would the foundation vote its shares in the family business?

“What are our responsibilities as owners? How do we apply our values to all of our dollars?” Beckwith asked, saying that foundations need not give up their values or their expectation of return in the realm of investments. “Ninety percent of our assets are screened.”

He pointed grantmakers toward community development financial institutions (CDFIs) as an easy entry point into the world of mission-related and socially responsible investing.

Foundations carry a portion of their assets in cash for a number of reasons, Beckwith explained. Foundations can easily purchase insured certificates of deposit from CDFIs and not only secure a return but do good in communities as well.

Doby noted that her foundation’s practices were rooted in the founder’s vision of community and democracy.

“For Mott, democracy worked best when individuals were related to the community and its institutions, and when institutions were related to individuals,” Doby said.

She explained that community organizing becomes important because policymakers often already know what ought to be done but are “held captive” by other interests.

“The point is to build community voices so that policymakers have the political cover to do the right thing,” she said.

Tuesday’s event was sponsored by the Center for Community Change, Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, the Greater Washington Social Justice Forum, and the Hill-Snowdon Foundation.

Kevin Laskowski is a Field Associate with the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Monday, November 16, 2009

I’m delighted to share a great new resource from Funders for LGBTQ Issues. The racial equity toolkit provides funders with an important lens to consider when making grants for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning communities. It demonstrates a deep understanding of the intersections and nuance of the many dimensions involved in grantmaking of any kind. And as RaceWire points on out, while the toolkit was designed specifically for LGBTQ grantmaking, any social justice organization that challenges existing power structures and norms can find tons of benefits and resources in this work.

I blogged about the Woods Fund decision to explicitly adopt a racial equity lens in their grantmaking back in September and it’s great to see so much similar work being done around this important issue across the sector.

A big shout out to Funders for LGBTQ Issues for making this important contribution to the field!!!

Niki Jagpal

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Friday, September 11, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

NCRP Board member Marjorie Fine just released a fantastic new book: Change Philanthropy: Candid Stories of Foundations Maximizing Results through Social Justice. Alicia Epstein Korten is the author, and Margie, in her role as director of the Linchpin Campaign at the Center for Community Change, was the project director.

I reviewed an early draft of the book, and just got a chance to look through the finished product. The great thing about Change Philanthropy is that it tells stories; it doesn’t make an argument with statistics. The stories – case studies, really – bring to life the real challenges and exhilarations of grantmaking that seeks to address critical social issues of our day. Program staff and trustees of foundations will find new insights for their own work, and nonprofit leaders and fundraisers will get a rare and candid look inside the inner workings of grantmaking institutions.

The ten grantmakers featured in the book range from very small to very large and include independent foundations, family foundations and grantmaking public charities. They are:

• Discount Foundation
• Schott Foundation
• Needmor Fund
• Jacobs Family Foundation
• Ford Foundation
• Open Society Institute
• Liberty Hill Foundation
• Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
• Global Fund for Women
• Gulf Coast Fund for Community Renewal and Ecological Health

So if you’re looking for a good book on social justice philanthropy this fall, pick up a copy. It’s available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Books-A-Million. (And, no, I don’t get any royalties for making this pitch!)

Are there other books on social justice philanthropy you’d recommend? Please share in your comments!

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Thursday, July 16, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

The Foundation Center released yesterday a new report about social justice grantmaking. The press release announcing the findings in Social Justice Grantmaking II claims that there is “renewed interest” from grantmakers in supporting social justice. As a percentage of total grantmaking, giving for social justice climbed from 11 percent in 2002 to 12 percent in 2006.

You can download for free a 12-page summary of the report, or order a hard copy of the full report for $40. I was privileged to serve on the advisory committee for this project, and I recommend ordering a copy of the full report if you want to get the detailed insights provided by extensive data analysis and interview findings.

What has been your experience? Are funders more willing to support social justice causes (such as efforts on anti-poverty, environmental justice, improving access to health care and others) now than they were a few years ago? What do you think needs to happen to help speed up the growth in social justice funding? In what year do you think we’ll reach the point where 25 percent or more of all foundation grant dollars are for social justice causes?

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Monday, April 20, 2009

By Niki Jagpal

The Foundation Center’s Philanthropy News Digest Blog, PhilanTopic features a March 30 story from Jolene Constance, assistant warden at the C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center in Louisiana, a state-run prison for adult males. Titled Grants that Make a Difference, Constance’s story isn’t about a monetary grant; instead, she shares a story about a donation of books to the prison by the Louisville, KY-based National Center for Family Literacy and the National Center for Family Literacy in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. PhilanTopic describes the books as “an instrument of change and opportunity.” The two grantmakers donated some 1,000 books on National Family Literacy Day weekend and alternating weekends during the month of November. The books went to children of incarcerated men, who read them to their children when they visit.

As Constance’s story notes, children of imprisoned parents are the “silent victims of crime”: monetary or logistical constraints can limit the number of visits that are possible with their parents who they do not see as ‘offenders’ but simply as loved ones from whom they are removed. As the story notes, an imprisoned father reading to his child “facilitates reconciliation and a bonding experience that is rare in a prison setting.” A second impact of the donated books is equally important – they “bridge literacy barriers” by helping to remove the stigma frequently associated with lower literacy level books read by incarcerated people. Because these men read the same books in literacy classes, instead of being seen as less educated, they’re now seen as "caring parents." The most important part of Constance’s story is worth quoting verbatim:

"What makes this particular grant a good example of the effective use of philanthropic funds?

It has been proven that children of incarcerated parents are at greater risk of becoming offenders themselves. By breaking that link, we can save a whole generation of young people from becoming adjudicated offenders, reduce the number of crime victims, and save taxpayer dollars now spent to house offenders. Rebuilding relationships between offenders who are being discharged and their families is priceless. If offenders are committed to their families, they are less likely to recidivate and more likely to become productive members of society, which means one less single parent household due to incarceration, one less family seeking financial support from government entities, and one less victim of a senseless crime."

I couldn’t agree more: this is effective and strategic philanthropy. In addition to the issues noted in this story, The Sentencing Project and the Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009 include statistics and other related information about the United States’ “criminal justice system.” As noted on the Measure of America website under "factoids" section, measured in absolute numbers, we have more of our citizens in prisons than any other country in the world; we comprise five percent of the world’s people but our incarcerated men and women make up close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners; and the average education level among our imprisoned population is only 11 years of schooling. And our recidivism rate is about two-thirds per among released ex-offenders. Something doesn’t quite add up here, does it?

Offenders and ex-offenders were among the 11 special populations we analyzed in developing our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. As we highlighted in our analysis, even when defining marginalized communities so broadly, only $1 out of every $3 could be classified as benefitting these groups in the aggregate. In analyzing foundation giving for offenders and ex-offenders, giving that benefits this group comprised only 0.7 percent of total foundation giving from the 2004-2006 time period and we found notable variability among the top 25 funders. As a proportion of overall giving, the range for the top five funders for work that seeks to benefit offenders and ex-offenders was 14.7-57.7 percent. And unfortunately, the top funder of this work, the JEHT Foundation, which was among the many foundations victimized by Bernard Madoff, is now out of business.

The “Men Read” program offers one example of exemplary philanthropy in action but considering the scope of the problem, institutional philanthropy has a real opportunity to become more effective and strategic by targeting its grant dollars to benefit offenders and ex-offenders. Especially with the JEHT Foundation’s demise, will your foundation rise to this challenge? Will you consider prioritizing this group in your grantmaking? Not only would our imprisoned citizens, their families and children benefit from such strategic grantmaking, all of us would fare better. Each of us, especially children of imprisoned citizens, would see a more level playing field and have more reason to hope for social advancement and inclusion.

Does your institution or you have a compelling story like the “Men Read” program? We’d love to hear from you if you do so we can highlight the important contributions of your grantmaking in making the world more just for all of us.

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at NCRP.

posted on: Friday, March 13, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

The L.A. Times reported Monday that Michael Eisner made a $1.25 million gift to the California Institute of the Arts from his family foundation.

NCRP’s critics are likely expecting me to ask why in the world Mr. Eisner is supporting the arts when he should be supporting anti-poverty efforts.

But I’m not going to criticize his gift. In fact, I want to praise him for it. His gift is a perfect example of how foundations can simultaneously promote the causes they care about (in this case, the arts) and benefit marginalized communities.

The grant is for bringing arts instruction to Los Angeles schoolchildren, most of whom are from low-income families.

There’s no telling whether or not Mr. Eisner has seen NCRP’s latest report, but this is exactly the kind of creative thinking we hoped to inspire when we published our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and called for foundations to dedicate at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of economically and socially disadvantaged groups. If you’re an arts funder, we’re not saying you should start funding social services for the poor. We are saying you should look for ways to include underserved communities in your grantmaking, within the context of your mission.

You can read more about philanthropic support for vulnerable members of our society in Chapter 1 of Criteria, available for free at www.ncrp.org/paib.

Do you know of other arts-focused foundations that have used creative grantmaking to bring the arts to lower-income and other socially disadvantaged groups? Please share the story!

posted on: Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Rural Louisiana left wondering after Ike and Gustav wreaks havoc

By Yna Moore

It’s been almost two weeks since Hurricanes Ike and Gustav battered the rural coastal parishes of Louisiana and most of the foundation world seems not to take notice.

True, Gustav and Ike were not the monster storms that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were in 2005. Perhaps there’s an assumption that the need for disaster assistance is less. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Rural Louisiana is home to many low-income families who lost homes and livelihoods, which are mostly farming, fishing and small family businesses, in the wake of Katrina and Rita. The area was still in the midst of rebuilding when the two recent hurricanes struck the area.

The effect of these hurricanes brings home one sad fact—disasters disproportionately affect the poor: those that can’t afford land; those that have nowhere else to go and no one else to turn to; those that rely on the help of others to survive; those that have no money to tackle on their own the daunting task of rebuilding.

Sister Helen Vinton, assistant executive director of the Southern Mutual Help Association and NCRP board member, informed us that the country’s foundations are largely absent in responding to the pleas for help from Louisiana’s rural communities despite great need.

So to foundations across the country, big and small: they need your help! This is your chance to have an impact on the lives of thousands of Americans struggling to rebuild and recover from these natural disasters. There are many nonprofit organizations in the frontlines that will put your foundation’s dollars to good and worthwhile use. Will you take heed?

Do you know of foundations who are responding to the needs of rural areas affected by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike? How can the country’s foundations best help relief and recovery efforts? Please, tell us about it!

Kristina “Yna” Moore is communications director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Thursday, June 12, 2008

by NCRP

Two new reports highlight important work undertaken by research director Niki Jagpal and senior research associate Lisa Ranghelli prior to joining NCRP's research team. The methods and results of these research efforts will inform NCRP's own work to promote philanthropy at its best.

The Solidago Fund recently released a report quantifying the community benefits achieved by its grantees and the return on investment of its funding for community organizing. Lisa Ranghelli worked with Jeff Rosen and other Solidago staff to develop the methodology and gather and analyze data for the report. She had previously worked with the Needmor fund to do a similar analysis of its community organizing grantmaking (see below). In calculating community benefits, the Solidago methodology allowed for differentiation between shared and full credit for grantee accomplishments. It also determined the foundation’s contribution to these accomplishments by calculating each grant as a proportion of the group’s budget. The report concluded that collaborative strategies yielded the greatest impact and found a return on investment for Solidago of $1 to $59. [Link]

In 2003, Lisa worked with the Needmor Fund, a small family foundation focused on social justice, to collect grantee data on organizational development. Lisa’s work found that the 18 surveyed grantees had collectively grown their membership by more than 30% and their leadership by 53% over four years. The most striking thing she found was that the aggregate dollar amount of their accomplishments during the four year time horizon was more than $1.37 billion. This meant that Needmor’s investment of $2,688,500 effectively generated a return of $1 to $512. [Link]

These two reports, which were preceded by independent research from the Jewish Funds for Justice, provide some of the framework for NCRP’s impact of advocacy and organizing work. For foundations seeking to maximize impact, NCRP wants to show the social and monetary value of investing in community organizing as a way to achieve lasting social change.

Meanwhile, research director Niki Jagpal did extensive post-Katrina research with Jim Carr, former Senior Vice President for Financial Innovation, Planning, and Research for the Fannie Mae Foundation who currently serves as Chief Operating Officer at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Her work focused on the disparate impact on lower-income and African American communities in New Orleans both immediately after the storm and following the one-year anniversary. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies recently announced the publication of a series of reports calling for a new model of disaster response, one that considers “historic patterns of discrimination and inequality.” Niki’s work is featured in one of the reports, “In the Wake of Katrina: The Continuing Saga of Housing and Rebuilding in New Orleans.” [Link]

Niki’s previous work addressing the distinct impact of Katrina and the subsequent recovery efforts on traditionally marginalized communities sets the backdrop for NCRP’s work on developing criteria for Philanthropy at its Best (PAIB). Promoting philanthropy that explicitly identifies and seeks to remedy structural barriers to equality are integral components of PAIB

posted on: Thursday, May 22, 2008

by Yna Moore

The appointment of Bradford K. Smith as the Foundation Center’s new president beginning in October is welcome news (view press release here). He was strongly supportive of social justice grantmaking when he led the Ford Foundation’s Peace and Social Justice Program. There is much reason for optimism that under his leadership, the Foundation Center will continue its efforts to shed light on the amount of foundation dollars that go toward meeting the needs of the many marginalized groups in the country.

Kristina ("Yna") Moore is communications director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Friday, May 02, 2008

by Niki Jagpal

On May 1, 2008, the Council on Foundations (COF) released the first in a series of reports “looking at the interaction between philanthropy and the economy.” Foundations Support Families Hit by Economic Downturn: Results of a Survey by the Council on Foundations (available for download on the COF website) states that “the vast majority of foundations (86 percent) support grantmaking that either directly or indirectly aids families, provides human services, assists lower income populations or supports economic development.” Indeed, the Foundation Center’s 2008 edition of Foundation Giving Trends notes that “[…] for the period 2003-2006, the economically disadvantaged registered the second fastest growth rate among all the major population groups (up 28.3 percent annually)” [Foundation Center, 2008, p. 42]. Highlights of this report are available for free download here.

At first glance, this is certainly welcome news, particularly the long-term trend data provided by the Foundation Center. However, the COF report is based entirely on self-reporting by their members. Moreover, of the total 1,841 COF members, 320 responded to a web-based survey, representing a 17.38 percent response rate. Further, while community foundations comprise 27 percent of COF membership, they comprised 41 percent of survey respondents. In other words, community foundations are disproportionately overrepresented in the COF survey sample.

In its discussion of foundation support to families impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis, the COF report states that community, corporate and independent foundations were more likely than family foundations to engage in grantmaking that supports such activities (16-17 percent compared to 12 percent). Indeed, the COF report concludes that over half (51 percent) of community foundations would decrease grantmaking over the coming year; only 46 percent would sustain their current levels of grantmaking for the economically disadvantaged.

Taken together, the two reports suggest a reduction in foundation giving aimed at benefiting the economically disadvantaged. Is that reflexive of foundations supporting families hard hit by the flagging US economy? One is left to wonder, especially when considering the COF report’s own cautionary note that “… while the majority of foundations say that the downturn in the economy will have no effect on their ability to maintain their grantmaking, this situations bears watching. In addition, the impacts of the subprime mortgage crisis are not fully known.”

Niki Jagpal is the research director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Thursday, May 01, 2008

By Priscilla Hung

At GIFT (Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training) and the Grassroots Fundraising Journal, we focus on fundraising, the flip side of philanthropy. Even with engaged and progressive funders and donors, recipient organizations must still build relationships with them, request funds appropriately, and demonstrate the impact of their work.

But it continues to be a struggle for most grassroots groups to engage in individual donor fundraising in an empowering and sustainable way. Why is that?

In early April at the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice in New York, we hosted a discussion on this issue with a mix of fundraising staff members, progressive funders, nonprofit directors, and consultants. The conversation touched on a lot of different reasons why grassroots groups struggle with building a broad base of supporters – ranging from not having a clear message or way to communicate with our communities, to not using technology in our outreach efforts, to there being too many nonprofits and not enough money to support all of them, as middle-and working-class communities struggle to stay afloat and government funding decreases.

One person said that there’s a tension between organization-building and movement-building. Organizations often feel they have to compete for dollars and attention. They feel pressured to play up successes and take full credit for them while in donor and funder meetings, even when they know their efforts are only successful if lots of other organizations are also engaged in the work. They get the sense that fundraising should be done by highly-skilled people, but it’s okay if they’re not politically active. People come away from trainings thinking that they must create major donor programs that cater to people who aren’t part of their base.

And those who are fundraising staff often feel isolated, with the stress of a lot of responsibility but little authority. They often have no involvement in the programs of the organization and don’t know what other staff are doing, resulting in missed opportunities to use fundraising to organize, and to use organizing drives to fundraise. Or on the other extreme, they may have too much authority by determining which programs get funded and which ones don’t.

This is how too many groups operate. It doesn’t have to be that way. Step by step, groups around the country and around the world are changing the way fundraising and community-building look. Capacity-builders like GIFT are democratizing and demystifying fundraising. Groups are talking together about how to resource the social justice movement.

But where to go from these isolated efforts? Where are the settings that foster big ideas and bold new strategies in fundraising that match our progressive political values? Where is the community where people work together and support each other to try new resource development ideas and take risks – and have each other’s back if they don’t work?

There are incomplete conversations happening. Conversations of fundraisers that don’t involve organizers. And conversations of organizing that may touch on fundraising but don’t involve people who identify themselves as fundraisers. Fundraising is too often left out of the conversation because it’s often seen as a skill that some staff member just needs to learn and take care of. What will it take for groups to see that fundraising is political?

And what are the consequences if we continue to fundraise in isolation – in isolation within our own organizations, in isolation from each other, and in isolation from movement-building strategies and activities? Groups always scraping by, never able to have all the money they need to do something like change national policy? A public distrustful of and disconnected from nonprofits? Groups dependent on foundations and not reaching out to their communities?

GIFT is working toward creating a space where we can bridge the gaps between movement-building conversations and fundraising ones. When GIFT first started, we were excited to have twenty people of color in the room who wanted to fundraise. A decade later, at our first Raising Change: A Social Justice Fundraising Conference in 2006, we had 420 people in a room wanting to discuss fundraising, with almost 300 hundred of them being people of color.

Join us at the next Raising Change: A Social Justice Fundraising Conference, this July 25-26 in San Francisco, CA so we can keep the conversation going.

Priscilla Hung is Co-Director of GIFT. GIFT provides fundraising training, resources, and analysis to social justice organizations nationwide. It also publishes the Grassroots Fundraising Journal and hosts Raising Change: A Social Justice Fundraising Conference. Priscilla@grassrootsfundraising.org

posted on: Friday, April 04, 2008

What happens to a dream deferred?[1]

By Niki Jagpal

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, jr., it seems appropriate to review the progress we’ve made as a country toward achieving, or at least advancing, Dr. King’s vision as articulated in his famous “I have a dream” 1963 speech.

The Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation recently released a report called What We Can Do Together: A Forty Year Update on the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. The report tracks progress in areas ranging from education, health, income and wealth to crime and poverty, and is a follow up to the informally known Kerner Commission Report of 1968, which investigated the causes of the 1967 riots in Newark, Detroit and New Brunswick, and suggested mechanisms to prevent reoccurrence.

Contrary to Johnson’s assumption that ‘militant groups’ like the Black Panthers were responsible for the ‘race riots,’ the report concluded, “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal.” So 40 years later, it is fair to ask: is our nation still moving towards two societies, still separate and unequal? And what role can philanthropy play in addressing the needs of our evolving, pluralistic democracy?

Let’s compare some findings and statistics from the original report to those in the 40th anniversary report by the Eisenhower Foundation:

The criminal justice system:

“To some Negroes police have come to symbolize white power, white racism and white repression. And the fact is that many police do reflect and express these white attitudes. The atmosphere of hostility and cynicism is reinforced by a widespread belief among Negroes in the existence of police brutality and in a "double standard" of justice and protection--one for Negroes and one for whites.” – Kerner Commission Report

Today, the numbers paint a picture of little progress. According to the Eisenhower Foundation report:

• Minorities face a greater likelihood of receiving the death sentence than Whites. Minorities are also given longer sentences than Whites for the same crimes. Crack cocaine, which is used disproportionately by minorities, carries much longer sentences than those for powder cocaine, used more frequently by Whites.
• Scholars continue to find that regardless of their qualifications, some employers push minority applicants into the worst jobs. Further, many real estate agents steer minorities to less desirable locations, than Whites and fewer minority mortgage applications are accepted than White applications
• From the 1960’s to the 1980’s, school desegregation made rapid advances but was reversed dramatically by the courts.

Residential segregation and the “ghetto”

“Within the cities, Negroes have been excluded from white residential areas through discriminatory practices. Just as significant is the withdrawal of white families from, or their refusal to enter, neighborhoods where Negroes are moving or already residing. About 20 percent of the urban population of the United States changes residence every year. The refusal of whites to move into "changing" areas when vacancies occur means that most vacancies eventually are occupied by Negroes.

The result, according to a recent study, is that in 1960 the average segregation index for 207 of the largest United States cities was 86.2. In other words, to create an unsegregated population distribution, an average of over 86 percent of all Negroes would have to change their place of residence within the city.” – Kerner Commission Report

So 40 years later, how integrated are our neighborhoods?

• In the 1990s, overall residential segregation declined for African Americans but it rose for African Americans younger than 18 years of age.
• From 1980 to 2000, Hispanic residential segregation increased in several major metropolitan areas
• The overall levels of residential segregation remain disproportionately high for communities of color.

Communities of color and poverty

“Although there have been gains in Negro income nationally, and a decline in the number of Negroes below the "poverty level," the condition of Negroes ill the central city remains in a state of crisis. Between 2 and 2.5 million Negroes-16 to 20 percent of the total Negro population of all central cities live in squalor and deprivation in ghetto neighborhoods. …

In 1966, about 11.9 percent of the nation's whites and 40.6 percent of its nonwhites were below the "poverty level" defined by' the Social Security Administration (currently $3,335 per year for an urban family of four). Over 40 percent of the nonwhites below the poverty level live in the central cities.” – Kerner Commission Report

Today’s numbers on poverty rates among African Americans and Hispanics are:

• At a time when the U.S. is the richest country in history, 37 million Americans live in poverty today.
• Very poor African Americans are 3 times as likely and very poor Hispanics are twice as likely as Whites to live below half the poverty line, which is about $10,600 for a family of four.[2]

A Paradigm Shift

The Kerner Commission’s conclusion that our country was headed towards two societies, separate but unequal, seems to have borne out, despite the report’s intent for government to make policy changes to address racial inequality.

What the authors of the original report probably didn’t know was that their recommendations presaged a radically different way of analyzing racial inequality in the U.S. – structural racism. Discussions of race that focus exclusively on class obscure the impact of public and private institutions in perpetuating racial inequality. Structural racism argues that the combined impact of institutional arrangements and structures have racialized outcomes, even when these structures appear to be racially neutral, such as those affecting economic mobility.

Re-conceiving race and racism require an intellectual paradigm shift, and this has practical policy implications for addressing gaps in achievement versus gaps in opportunity. It is time for a policy paradigm shift, as Dr. Stephen Mayer recently noted. Let’s consider reframing affirmative action by adding class-based criteria to race.

What does this mean for philanthropy?

Philanthropists and private foundations can choose to invest their dollars in structural change; this isn’t ‘ivory tower’ academia inserting itself into philanthropy. It’s about focusing on the groups who are engaging in work on a daily basis that produces long-term sustainable results that benefit their communities. Foundations should seek out opportunities to invest their limited contributions in grants to local community organizations that are working on structural barriers to racial equality in the U.S.

As diversity remains a ‘hot topic’ in philanthropy, the time is right to remember Dr. King’s closing statement at the March on Washington, D.C. in 1963 through the lenses of structural barriers to racial equality, including class, gender, age, disability and, yes, public policy. Class-based affirmative action may be the first step towards allowing us to achieve Dr. King’s dream:

“And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"”

Niki Jagpal is research director at NCRP.

[1] Langston Hughes (1951). Harlem, from Montage of a Dream Deferred. Quoted in the 2008 Eisenhower Foundation report
[2] 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines

posted on: Monday, March 31, 2008

By Yna Moore

Does contemporary philanthropy benefit the needy? An increasing number from within the sector and the public don’t think so, and that’s problematic, said Susan Raymond in her speech during the 5th annual summit of OnPhilanthropy.

She implored the philanthropic community to take to heart the growing number of voices that have accused the sector of abandoning the needy, because the distrust and skepticism call into question the sector’s role in society:

“Those asking the questions are not the hairdressers of Hopkinsville or the
good old boys of the Koffee Klatch Kafe. The questions are not being asked
out of ignorance. They are being asked out of observation. … It is a
painful accusation but it is a fair question, because we hold the public trust;
we are the stewards of the societal commons. … It is a question that lies at the
heart of the reason for our very existence, the reason the people shoulder our
tax burdens. It is the essence of our compact with the American people,
the central core of their trust in us.”

NCRP has been one of the leading voices calling for change in foundation grantmaking practices for over 30 years, and it’s heartening to hear a well-regarded leader from the sector acknowledge the need to take the criticism seriously.

Her suggested rebuttal to these criticisms seems reasonable. Indeed, the concept of poverty and need has been a source of philosophical debate that predates philanthropy. There is no arguing that just as many around the world and in this country are in dire need of food for the body, there is also a human need for food for the mind and soul through the arts, religion and sciences. And it is also true that change—real systemic change—takes time, and the cause and effect of circumstances leading to change are not necessarily linear. In addition, the solutions to the problems our society faces today—such as poverty, lack of access to basic services, unemployment and environmental degradation—are as complex as the problems themselves. Consequently, there is no magic pill, no magic formula.

As Dr. Raymond dissected the arguments of critics, her rebuttal implicitly supports many of the ideas that critics have suggested to correct the philanthropic sector’s shortcomings in responding to the needy. Foundations should be more strategic in their grantmaking by using a variety of tools that more effectively respond to the needs of marginalized groups. This means that funding policy advocacy and grassroots organizing is just as important as funding direct services to address both the sources and symptoms of poverty and injustice. This means providing more flexible, multi-year support to nonprofits, not just program-specific grants for nonprofits serving the disengaged.

Finally, funding the arts and sciences is not bad at all. In fact, these are essential for people and civilizations to thrive. Although there is considerable wealth tied to philanthropic institutions, these resources are, nevertheless, scarce and limited compared to the tremendous needs in our society. As stewards of these resources, foundations must use their philanthropic dollars wisely and responsibly because at the end of the day, this all boils down to priorities.

These priorities will reflect the values of our society. What should we, as a sector, prioritize? Should people that make our work possible, i.e. the tax paying public that subsidize our sector, have a right to question how their tax dollars are being put to use? Absolutely!

If foundations don’t question their own priorities and don’t start doing more to benefit those with the least wealth and opportunity, not only will the critics grow in number, but their elected representatives might decide it’s time for the government to step in.

Anna Kristina ("Yna") Moore is communications director at NCRP.

posted on: Tuesday, March 04, 2008

by Steven E. Mayer, Ph.D.


Until foundations address the structural inequities that contribute significantly to human suffering, their own effectiveness will be limited. Structural inequities show up in virtually all the data as gaps or disparities in the performance of our public and private systems, chronically favoring some groups over others. They represent fault lines in our society and its institutions, including philanthropic organizations themselves. If not addressed, they will drag down the performance of the very foundations and nonprofits that otherwise intend to do good.

Why, as frequent studies show, are African Americans turned down for a mortgage or business loan at a higher rate than Whites with the same credit histories? Clearly this favoritism is driven by false assumptions, even though it hurts the lender. It might take a more diverse foundation board to understand this is a problem, or to decide to address it, but it will take influence in the bank’s inner offices to change its practice. There is a role for influential White board members to step up and do some heavy lifting to create the space for a legitimate fix to structural inequities.

Why does an achievement gap exist between African American children and White children even as they start kindergarten? Upstream of kindergarten success are parents who understand the value of education, who encourage their children to learn, who spend supportive time with their children and their teachers. African American and White moms alike face staggering challenges juggling work, transportation, child care, health care, aging family members, and their own development beyond mere survival. African American dads, far more often than White dads, are gone or locked up, having been booked on suspicion since adolescence, and booked again because they’ve been booked before. Chronically hunted down and tagged with a record assures an African American male a lifetime of disenfranchisement, with far greater challenges in finding legitimate work, breathing room, or the right to vote. This is Jim Crow at its worst, still lethal, and well-documented. As James Baldwin put it, "The wonder is not that so many Negro boys and girls are ruined … but that so many survive."

Until these systems can be turned around, beginning with the justice system, and until those rebuked and scorned are permitted to put together a generation or two of fair and steady access to the fruits of opportunity, we’re going to have parents who have kids who are not ready for school.

The Black-White divide is not the only one needing fixing; all non-White ethnic groups are treated less fairly by the typically unwritten operating rules of public systems and private markets. Among Whites, rural areas are disfavored, as are those born to poor circumstances.

One can argue it’s for government to fix all this. One can argue it’s a matter of personal responsibility. The third sector, philanthropy, has a decent record in caring for many of the victims of such flawed policies and practices, but philanthropy-as-usual has not done enough to stimulate the development of more level playing fields. There is a world of opportunity for foundations and nonprofits to promote solutions to unfair system dynamics. Philanthropy can help create the commitment, resources, and skills for fixing what’s wrong. And yes, this kind of advocacy is perfectly legal.

Imagine the applause and support awaiting those working to extend the full fruits of society’s potential bounty to all. The winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize was bankrolled by an American foundation in his early work in Bangladesh, lifting thousands out of poverty and setting an example now emulated world-wide. All it took was a good idea, good leadership, and the sustained commitment of a growing base of support.

To start, a foundation can create internal study time to explore the ways in which documented racial and other group disparities hold back good outcomes in its own program areas. Next, it can identify the dynamics that produce and maintain these disparities; typically this requires looking further upstream for the problems causing the casualties. It can listen to those who know these difficulties firsthand, and to authorities perhaps previously overlooked. Then, it can prioritize its resources to create a more muscular philanthropy capable of producing more balanced outcomes throughout society.

Nonprofits must send forward proposals that put pressure on the mechanisms that maintain these gaps. Of course, they must be assured by prospective funders that such ideas are favored. Foundations, for their part, can raise to the top and approve those credible proposals that put pressure on existing gaps. This would result in a different grants list than currently prevails.

Acting through able partners on the ground, a foundation can strengthen the relationships and networks that serve as the creative seedbed and community infrastructure that springs and supports good ideas. It can strengthen individual and organizational leadership to bridge the many divides needed to move promising solutions along to implementation.

The Boards and staffs of foundations are in a position to do a world of good, even staying within their existing mission. It’s not just about the diversity of faces on the Board and staff , though a respectful regard for others’ experiences would certainly help. It’s about how well Boards focus philanthropic resources on closing the gaps and reducing the casualties. Philanthropy can and must put its collective shoulders to these wheels. Until it does, and becomes more relevant to today’s society, we will continue to see mean-spirited systems and markets that contribute to substantial human suffering, and highly mediocre levels of philanthropic organization performance.


Steven E. Mayer, Ph.D. is director of Effective Communities LLC, and principal contributor to the website www.JustPhilanthropy.org

* * * * *