posted on: Tuesday, March 23, 2010

By Niki Jagpal

Catharine Crystal Foster, an independent consultant and seasoned advocate, and Justin Louie of Blueprint Research and Design, Inc., recently coauthored a good resource for funders and community organizers looking to evaluate organizing efforts. Grassroots Action and Learning for Social Change: Evaluating Community Organizing adds to the available resources for grantmakers that fund community organizing or those that would fund it if they could evaluate the work somehow.

Similarly, organizers can learn about the organic processes involved in evaluating their work to help them make a results-driven case to their current or prospective funders by using some of the information in this publication. Perhaps the most useful part of the publication for both grantmakers and organizers is the link it provides to a series of videos that were developed for grantees of the California Endowment, where organizers “discuss their experiences developing and conducting evaluations of their efforts.”

Incidentally, the California Endowment provided the financial support for this brief, and played a key role in NCRP’s recent Grantmaking for Community Impact Project report documenting the impacts of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement in L.A. County. Not only did the foundation provide funds for our report, but this grantmaker is exemplary in many ways, especially when it comes to supporting organizing and advocacy work for vulnerable communities and developing meaningful evaluation tools for such efforts.

So check out the latest addition to the community organizing ‘demystification box’ and kudos to Catharine and Justin on contributing to an important and ongoing discussion.

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

posted on: Thursday, March 18, 2010

By Kevin Laskowski

A new report details the disastrous effects of state budget crises on an already hard-hit nonprofit sector and, among other recommendations, encourages foundations to ramp up advocacy and organizing efforts.

Published this week by the National Council of Nonprofits, State Budget Crises: Ripping the Safety Net Held By Nonprofits explains how cash-strapped states are needlessly sacrificing civil society for solvency amid the economic downturn. Forty-eight states face an estimated $194 billion shortfall this year, and the situation is not likely to improve. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reported that 35 states will face budget gaps totaling more than $55 billion for in 2011, and 23 states already project shortfalls totaling $69 billion for the 2012 fiscal year. In response, states are slashing funds for essential human services, shifting costs to nonprofits, withholding payments to nonprofit contractors, imposing new fees, and circumventing charities' tax-exempt status.

To maximize impact and protect the nonprofit sector and those it serves, the Council urges foundations to get in the game and "leverage [their] investments in nonprofits by supporting policy work."

Citing statistics from NCRP's Grantmaking for Community Impact Project (GCIP), the report notes, "Foundation giving that supports civic engagement and nonprofit advocacy yields tremendous returns, producing $88 to $157 in benefits for every dollar invested in advocacy."

(GCIP documents the impact of advocacy and organizing in sites around the country. There are four published reports in the series, including reports from New Mexico [source of the $157 figure], North Carolina [source of the $89 figure], Minnesota, and Los Angeles County.)

“Many foundations take at best a ‘hands‐off’ posture, and at times an actively negative one, toward policy involvement and civic engagement," the report continues with lessons learned from The Johns Hopkins University's Listening Post Project. "This puts an unnecessary damper on what should be a major function of the nation’s nonprofit institutions – giving voice to the voiceless and raising unaddressed issues to national policy attention."

"Foundations need to re‐think their hands‐off position toward nonprofit advocacy and increase their financial support for this important function," it said.

These comments echo the forceful claims of Gara LaMarche, President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies, and Lewis M. Feldstein, President of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, at a recent panel discussion at the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, "Too Close for Comfort? Obama and the Foundations,"a transcript of which was published this week.

In his remarks, LaMarche contended that policy engagement was essential, that grantmakers could not afford to ignore policy and expect success.

"[Foundations] cannot, with their own funds alone, begin to feed [the] hungry, care for the sick, or educate for participation in contemporary society many millions of young people," he said. "By definition, their role must be – it is hoped – catalytic."

"Since the federal budget alone dwarfs the combined endowments of America’s foundations – to use just one measure, last year’s much-debated stimulus package was more than twenty times the annual spending of all foundations put together – no foundation concerned with the education, health, employment, or any other core human undertaking can afford to be unconcerned with government policy. Government is the only institution that is both democratically controlled and can deliver, to use a philanthropy buzzword, at 'scale.'” (emphasis added)

Feldstein challenged the panel's premise, arguing that foundations as a group have been too quiet.

"[T]he problem is not that philanthropy is too close to Obama or too close to government, it’s that as an institution, for the most part we’re silent," he said. "We’re non-players! We’re marginal. We could do a huge amount more to move the public sector than we do. That’s the real failure."

"[O]ut of the 100,000-plus foundations, there are a tiny, tiny few who do this [work to move government in philanthropy]. And that’s this country’s loss," he said. (emphasis added)

Feldstein contended that, amid recent trends and the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, advocacy had become more necessary.

"This country needs it desperately, now; it’s going to be even harder for many of the views that people represent to be heard," he warned.

Indeed, without well-capitalized advocates and organizers to protect and sustain what serves as a safety net, grantmakers will watch as the downturn swallows years of philanthropic investment. Without a robust civic sector holding business and government accountable, an already dire situation will continue to worsen for vulnerable communities around the country. Philanthropy cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. As the Council's report suggests, it's time for grantmakers to get into the policy game.

"Policymakers deserve and need feedback on their proposals to address their budget shortfalls," the Council's report concludes. "Providing that feedback is yet another way that nonprofits can serve their communities – and protect the social safety net."

"[I]n looking at our recent experience and adjusting for the years to come, foundations also need to look into themselves," LaMarche argued last month. "Most move far too slowly to capitalize on actual opportunities to achieve long-sought goals once they’re at hand. Many are too skittish about engagement in policy advocacy. Few have a strategic vision broad enough to fit the key issues together into a coherent narrative. Dominant funding practices imprison their grantees in silos, reinforcing interest group politics. And the lack of multi-year core support in most cases hobbles foundation beneficiaries in the effort to plan, prepare, and seize the moment for change when it arises. I doubt that foundations and the Obama administration are too close for comfort. But comfort is not the goal. Engaged and critical discomfort is more likely to produce the best results for society, foundations, and our political leaders."

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

posted on: Wednesday, March 17, 2010

By Julia Craig

While we were in L.A. for the release of the most recent Grantmaking for Community Impact Project report, Lisa Ranghelli and I had the chance to catch up with Chris Gabriele of People Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER), a Santa Monica-based grassroots nonprofit focused on promoting affordable housing and education reform. We asked Chris to tell us how the impacts of community organizing extend beyond the victory, especially the ways in which it empowers residents to advocate on their own behalf. He described how a direct action POWER conducted led to new leaders in the community.



Holiday Venice provides 250 affordable rental units in a gentrifying neighborhood and is valued at $73.8 million. This victory was a substantial one for preserving access to low-income housing for residents of Venice.

The victory is more than the dollar amount. As Chris explains in the video, “It’s the transformation that happens within the community leaders. Folks that are normally downtrodden… [thinking] ‘I’m in a community that’s poor, there’s no way that we’re going to win.’ This idea of being able to confront a decision maker, being able to confront something that has had power over you for so long is transforming. And you’ve seen that over the past couple of years since that action in how the leaders who were a part of this action have grown, who have taken on more responsibility, have fostered relationships and cultivated new leaders within their own communities.”

The development of local leadership from the community is one of the key tenets of organizing and is something that sets it apart from other forms of advocacy. Some readers may have been put off by Chris’ description of the direct action event or are uncomfortable with the idea of supporting organizations that utilize confrontational tactics. However, direct action is just that: one tactic used as part of a larger strategy that includes developing leaders and arming individuals with the skill and confidence to take their concerns directly to decision makers.

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP and co-author with Lisa Ranghelli of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles.

posted on: Friday, March 12, 2010

By Lisa Ranghelli

A week after presenting our findings on the impressive impacts of grassroots organizing and advocacy in Los Angeles to a hundred foundation and nonprofit leaders, I was reminded that the theme of policy innovation we highlighted there continues to ring true. At the event, I spoke about cutting edge policies community leaders developed in Southern California that were emulated elsewhere, such as community benefits agreements. Dr. Bob Ross, CEO of the California Endowment, who described his foundation’s decision to embrace advocacy and systemic change strategies, noted that “Innovation does not scale without dealing with power.” I interpreted his words to mean that you cannot make real changes to systems and institutions without challenging the powerful, and by bringing community power to bear.

L.A. Voice and the PICO National Network are dealing with power, all right!

L.A. Voice, one of 15 organizations we studied in L.A. County, is taking on the banks. On March 5th, as part of a coalition that includes SEIU, National People's Action and the California Reinvestment Coalition, L.A. Voice and PICO helped convince the Los Angeles City Council to pull city funds from irresponsible banks and set new standards for investing public dollars in institutions that offer tangible benefits to the community.

As L.A. Voice faith leader Nathan French put it, "Banks were created for people. People were not created for banks."

The legislation is designed to ensure that taxpayer money is only invested in banks that actively help families keep their homes, expand lending to small businesses to create jobs, end risky derivative deals that put public services at stake and relieve the city's budget gap. According to PICO, the move will save the city at least $10 million immediately.

PICO and its allies will be organizing in communities across the country to promote similar reforms, meeting power with power to replicate this innovative response to the financial crisis.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at NCRP and co-author with Julia Craig of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County.

posted on: Thursday, February 25, 2010

by Julia Craig

An organizer aboard a Los Angeles bus.

Photo courtesy of Labor/Community Strategy Center Bus Riders Union

Next Tuesday, March 2, NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project will release the fourth report from the Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities series on the impacts of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement in Los Angeles County. (Learn more about the three previous reports on New Mexico, North Carolina and Minnesota.) Lisa Ranghelli, Kevin Laskowski and I will blog over the coming weeks to showcase stories from our work in the region.

You’ve probably heard that Los Angeles is not a place known for its public transportation infrastructure. L.A. County is home to 7 million cars and its infamous smog hovers over 650 square miles of freeway. But did you know that there are 500,000 transit riders in the region, and they have a union representing their needs? That’s according to Tammy Bang Luu of The Labor/Community Strategy Center Bus Riders Union (BRU). BRU was founded in 1992 as part of the Strategy Center’s Transportation Policy Group to provide a voice to these transit users. Since then, it has fought to improve public transportation access and build transit equity in the Los Angeles region.

When the Bus Riders Union began, it was a novel concept; no one in the nation had tried to organize transit riders, who are a diverse group of people with varying priorities and backgrounds. BRU has built a multi-lingual, multi-racial organization with 3,000 dues-paying members. Today, there are transit riders unions throughout the country including Austin, Atlanta, Boston and Baltimore.

In 1996, BRU won an unprecedented Consent Decree following a lawsuit against Los Angeles MTA citing racial discrimination in MTA’s transit policies. The suit alleged that MTA violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by establishing a discriminatory, separate, and unequal transportation system while using federal funds. The decree’s provisions lasted until 2001. During that time, BRU had to fight to implement the stipulations of the agreement, which included expanded bus services in centers of employment, fare reductions and the creation of a joint working group with MTA and BRU.

The Consent Decree set the stage for the Bus Riders Union’s ongoing work to hold transit officials accountable and bring the voices of transit users to bear on decision-making. In 2005, BRU won a streamlined process for the student bus pass application procedure. Students save $320 to $380 per year by purchasing a monthly pass instead of an adult pass or paying the full fare each day. Since the implementation of the new procedures, an estimated 20,000 additional eligible students purchase the monthly pass, netting families $47 million in savings over the course of six years.

This is just one example of the ways in which organizations in Los Angeles County are winning policy innovations that improve life for lower-income people, people of color, and other vulnerable communities. Check out the full report, which will be available for free download on our website on March 2, and let us know what you think in the comments!

Julia Craig is research associate and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in L.A. County.

To receive notification regarding the release of the report, join our mailing list.

posted on: Thursday, January 21, 2010

This week the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced the first grants in its multi-year initiative, Communities Creating Healthy Environments (CCHE). CCHE seeks to reverse the current epidemic of childhood obesity by 2015. Interestingly, rather than funding health care institutions that serve obese youth, RWJF will invest up to $250,000 over three years for each of ten grassroots community organizations that have a track record of advocating and organizing on social, economic and environmental justice issues. Another ten groups will be selected later this year.

The ten organizations will be funded to do what they already do well—engage and organize community residents to become more involved in the policy-making process—with an emphasis on building public support for systemic changes that will help families lead healthier lives. CCHE will help them develop effective interventions to address root causes of childhood obesity in their communities.

Makani Themba-Nixon, CCHE project director, cited 30 years of research demonstrating that neighborhood organizations are critical protective factors in community health, as well as recent evidence that community environments shape community and individual health. Changing environmental conditions, such as lack of access to healthy foods and safe playgrounds in low-income communities, will be central to reducing obesity.

Themba-Nixon knows the value of organizing to change systems from her many years providing technical assistance to grassroots organizations. As executive director of The Praxis Project, she has helped communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice. Prior to that, she led efforts to build the capacity of local and international advocates to address structural racism in public programs and policies. One might assume that an anti-obesity initiative would be headed by a medical or nutrition expert, but RWJF has wisely chosen someone who not only has a background in public health but also understands first hand that the answer does not lie solely on changing individual behaviors but in also empowering individuals to act collectively to change the factors that encourage obesity.

Congratulations to the ten organizations! We are pleased to note that two CCHE grantees were featured in our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project. The recent accomplishments of Southwest Organizing Project are described in Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in New Mexico, and InnerCity Struggle’s intergenerational organizing for education reform will be highlighted in our forthcoming publication (due out March 2nd) on the impacts of organizing and advocacy in Los Angeles County.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

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: Thursday, October 08, 2009

by Julia Craig

The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University recently released a series of C. S. Mott Foundation-funded case studies profiling the work of nonprofits organizing for school reform across the country. “The Impact of Community and Youth Organizing on School Reform” series examined the strategies of residents of seven urban areas across the country in their efforts to enact local school reforms.

One of the organizations included in the series was the Community Coalition of South Los Angeles. The Annenberg Institute documented the Community Coalition’s work improving access to college preparatory courses at high schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

The South L.A. Report profiled one of the students benefitting from access to college preparatory courses. The summary of the Annenberg Institute’s findings illustrated the power that organizing brought to the struggle for equitable access to resources in the school district. Russlyn Ali, executive director of The Education Trust-West said, “I am pretty convinced that no amount of intellectual framing and data and research that we could have provided would have moved the district. We needed the 800-plus Latino and African American parents to mandate rigor. It was organizing unlike anywhere else I’ve seen in the nation.”

Community Coalition co-created the Communities for Educational Equity coalition in 2004, which organized parents and students to demand more equitable distribution of resources and greater accountability from LAUSD. According to the study, organizing accomplished these goals. One school official commented that it was the largest reform the district passed in 20 years. The South L.A. Report talked to Luis Lopez, who graduated in 2008 and now attends UCLA, where he is doing research on South L.A. as part of his studies. He hadn’t even considered college until his senior year, since neither of his parents went. Luis was the valedictorian of his class. Still, upon enrollment in UCLA, he found that he wasn’t prepared for the rigors of a college setting. He looked around and realized he hadn’t had the same opportunities as his new classmates. As he told the South L.A. Report, “[I]f you compare Beverly Hills High to Fremont, one looks like a prison and the other looks like a university.”

The Annenberg Institute’s work to document the effectiveness of education reform organizing complements NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project. L.A. County is the fourth site of the project, following New Mexico, North Carolina and Minnesota. Additionally, Community Coalition is one of NCRP’s nonprofit partners and will participate in the research by providing us with data about their work and accomplishments over the past five years. NCRP senior research associate Lisa Ranghelli and I will be working with Community Coalition and 14 other groups in L.A. County documenting their work to educate funders about the value of advocacy and organizing work. We will release the results of our study in early 2010. I hope you’ll watch out for it!

Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.

posted on: Wednesday, September 09, 2009

by Niki Jagpal

On September 3rd, the Woods Fund of Chicago sent out an announcement to its listserv stating that this grantmaker is choosing to employ a racial equity lens in its funding. As the announcement states, “This addition comes after significant analysis, discourse and consideration on both an internal and external basis. It is informed by many sources, including foundation colleagues, grantee partners, the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity, the Racial Justice Funder’s Roundtable, and the grantmaker’s guide by GrantCraft entitled 'Grantmaking with a Racial Equity Lens.'”

The announcement also includes the foundation’s new racial equity principle, which states that “The Woods Fund of Chicago believes that structural racism is a root cause of many challenges facing less-advantaged communities and people and serves as a significant barrier to enabling work and eradicating poverty. The Woods Fund encourages and supports organizations, initiatives, and policy efforts that lead to eliminating structural racism. Success in this area will be evident when there is equal distribution of privileges and burdens among all races and ethnic groups, and when a person’s race or ethnicity does not determine his or her life outcomes. … Woods Fund is committed to raising awareness in the philanthropic community to support this work.”

I’m delighted to learn that the Woods Fund will use a racial equity lens in its grantmaking. Already an exemplary grantmaker in many ways, I drew on the Woods Fund's work when writing Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact. At the time of that writing, I noted how Deborah Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, identified the problem with implicit versus explicit articulation of racial justice language. I quoted Harrington before the Fund embraced explicitly a racial equity lens in making our case for more foundations to consider doing so. In her words: “[racial justice is] implicit in our guidelines and mission statement, [however] the lens is poverty, not race, and by addressing poverty, we are generally looking at people of color but not saying it directly.”

I also noted the contributions of organizations mentioned in the recent announcement in making the case for why racial equity offers the potential to transform philanthropy, including foundations and civic sector nonprofits. Organizations such as the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity under the leadership of dr. john a. powell, the Center for Social Inclusion, the Applied Research Center and the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity are currently engaged in critical work that emphasizes the importance of explicit racial language and identifying the intersections of race, place and opportunity among other issues. The groups are working toward what many call “catalytic” or “transformative” change. And grantmakers like the Woods Fund, Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues and many more are including explicitly racial equity lenses in their grantmaking that supports some of these groups.

It’s about acknowledging the legacy of our past in influencing access to life opportunities for communities and individuals. As the Woods Fund’s recent announcement makes clear, trying to solve these problems by using proxy terms instead of confronting directly our root problems or trying to solve problems with a “top down approach” that doesn’t respond to the real needs of communities is like trying to put out a wildfire with a hose. That’s where the importance of community organizing comes in, an area where the Woods Fund has, and continues to, lead by example.

Finally, using a racial equity lens will, I hope, make the Woods Fund’s multi-issue work even more impactful. We can’t solve problems in isolation by focusing on one issue at a time, nor can our community work in silos. It’s only by building our alliances and support for each other that we can truly hope to make a difference. As dr. powell once said to me, “Small problems hurt us by enticing us to see things as separate, while big problems are more likely to be seen relationally. … It is important for foundations and communities not only to do multi-issue work, but to see issues in relationship.” [Note: he’s way more articulate than I and we’re fortunate to have him as a member of our research advisory committee.] The Woods Fund has been exemplary in this aspect, already funding community organizing and participatory public policy, and importantly, the crossover of the two issues. That’s just what dr. powell’s talking about – seeing issues in relationship to each other. I’d say that’s the essence of strategic philanthropy – a holistic approach to problem-solving that produces real benefits for all of us. There are great stories of the widespread benefits from policy engagement of disenfranchised populations through nonprofit groups on a range of issues such as health care, living wages and civil rights from a series of reports we’re producing in our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.

A big h/t to the Woods Fund and Deborah Harrington for their decision to include a racial equity lens in their grantmaking. I share Harrington and the Fund’s hope that “by incorporating a racial equity lens into our guidelines and criteria, in some small way we can begin to model and promote racial equity practices within our own foundation and the greater philanthropic community.”

I definitely think they can promote racial equity practices in the broader philanthropic community – what about you?

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