posted on: Friday, February 19, 2010

February is black history month. It’s a time for us to remember the milestones and myriad positive steps we’ve taken as a country to be more inclusive of our black brothers and sisters. And it’s also a time to reflect on all the work that lies ahead because of persistent disparities and a seemingly universal assumption that we live in a post-racial society because we elected an African American man as our president. The NAACP has developed some fantastic multimedia tools for us to do just that.

1. Check out the Milestones page where you can learn about important dates in the history of our black brothers and sisters. You might be surprised to find out about the 1931 case of the Scottsboro Boys and their unfair treatment in the Emmett Till case. Have we gotten past that kind of racism? I don’t think so – remember the Jena Six case? Yes, they got a second chance and it was great that we came together to confront racial disparities in our justice system. When ordinary citizens are active like they were in the civil rights movement, we can make a difference. But we’ve clearly got work to do – and lots of it to ensure justice and parity in our criminal justice system (The Sentencing Project is a great resource for this if you’re interested.)
2. And then there’s the People – sure, we’ve all heard of the great Dr. Marin Luther King Jr. and other big names from the Movement. But who’s Linda Brown? Yeah, we’ve heard of Brown v. the Board of Education but check out the story of this brave third grader from Topeka. I think we can all learn something from her and her family’s story as we continue working towards a having real access to equal education.
3. There’s also the Pictures section – a great collection marking the NAACP’s 100th’s anniversary. A picture can speak a thousand words, right? I think there’s about a million in here!

Black history month is an opportunity for us to celebrate the milestones and victories and to look critically at where we stand currently so we can keep moving toward a society in which race and ethnicity really don’t determine how our life pans out. Kudos to the NAACP on 100 years of great work and for this fantastic resource.

Niki Jagpal is the research and policy director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

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: 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?

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.