posted on: Monday, March 22, 2010

By Niki Jagpal

As our country celebrates the House’s passage of the healthcare bill, many of us rightly welcome the first major social change program passed since the 1960’s. But even as we do so, much work remains to be done to address the myriad disparities that persist as barriers to equal life opportunities. Since 1966, the United Nations General Assembly has brought ending racial discrimination to the forefront, following the 1960 police attacks on peaceful anti-Apartheid protesters in South Africa. With the passage of Resolution 2142 in 1965, the UN General Assembly called on the international community to increase our efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, proclaiming March 21 as the date to do so. So as the House signed the healthcare bill for the Senate’s consideration, I wonder how many of us know the extent to which racial disparities continue to impede equal access to basic healthcare.

For example, in the most recent health report issued by the Measure of America used the Human Development Index adapted to the United States found significant disparities in healthcare by race. And although our country ranks high among developed countries using this metric, we’re not doing so well when 29 countries have residents who live, on average, longer lives than we do while spending 8 times less on healthcare. We rank 39th in the world for infant mortality and the rates by race are even more disturbing (full data tables are available at the links above).

I’m privileged to be a mentee of Dr. john a. powell, and wrote about an interview I did with him on how structural barriers to equality must be addressed must be addressed and how philanthropy can contribute meaningfully to those efforts. And this is the time for grantmakers to really analyze their strategies to ensure that racial equity remains a priority in all their work. And there are some great foundations leading the way – the Woods Fund of Chicago, Funders for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Issues and the California Endowment, for example. But the time is now for more foundations to embrace the principles of justice and equality on which this country was founded. One way is to acknowledge explicitly race as a persistent barrier to social inclusion. And there are many resources for funders who wish to do so (GrantCraft and the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity produced a guide for funders and the Diversity in Philanthropy Project is another resource; there are many more resources on each of the sites above). As the healthcare bill moves to the Senate, I hope more grantmakers will consider funding work that seeks to end racial discrimination as some of their peers have.

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at NCRP.

posted on: Thursday, March 18, 2010

This week, as numerous foundation leaders visited Congress during the annual Foundations on the Hill event, I wonder how many of them were aware of the onerous restrictions placed on the use of their funds that limit severely lower-income populations’ access to legal services. At a meeting co-sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights last week, a group of us convened to discuss the status of the restrictions placed on poor peoples’ access to legal services.

Established in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is our country’s largest provider of legal aid to our nation’s most vulnerable populations. Focused on providing equal access to justice, the LSC works to ensure that the poorest individuals and households in the United States have access to legal aid programs. The restrictions enacted during the 1990’s were somewhat alleviated last year when President Obama included a notable increase in funding for the LSC in his budget plan and repealed the restriction on attorney’s fees. But much work remains to be done for the LSC to continue its critical work. Current restrictions apply to private and foundation funds provided to LSC-funded organizations and include restrictions on participating in class action suits, a powerful tool for collective voice and action. Isn’t it appalling to think that foundations who really want to help our nation’s most needy get equal access to justice are prevented from doing so by archaic restrictions placed on non-federal funds?

But all isn’t hopeless: enter the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) in March of last year. The Act would increase poor peoples’ access to legal services by authorizing more funds for the LSC and also loosen some of the restrictions that keep LSC grant recipients from providing the much-needed services to their vulnerable clients. Is the bill perfect? Probably not; I’d say it’s necessary but insufficient but that I’m hopeful it will pass, allowing the approximately 60 percent of non-LSC funds to have the impact that those who provide them envisioned.

NCRP has consistently supported the Brennan Center’s efforts to remove the restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds because the values that undergird this work mirror ours: to ensure that those with the least wealth, opportunity and power are prioritized intentionally in philanthropy. As foundation assets have shrunk because of the recession, some funders have scaled back their LSC funding but others haven’t. Shouldn’t they all be outraged that the use of their funds to support lower-income populations’ access to legal services is being hampered unnecessarily by restrictions that remain in place since the Contract with America? Nonprofit advocacy is being unnecessarily restricted during a time when we need it more than ever (for more on this, see, e.g., the Brennan Center’s 2009 report Foreclosures: A Crisis in Legal Representation).

I’m honored to be part of the working group convened by the Brennan Center and the LCCR, and NCRP will continue to support efforts to remove the restrictions placed on non-LSC funds so that donors who care about our country’s most vulnerable can realize their vision and help us build a more just and equal legal system.

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

posted on: Friday, January 29, 2010

A People's loss in the United States: Howard Zinn, historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87

On Wednesday, as the nation rightly focused on the President’s first State of the Union address, we lost a revolutionary thinker with the passing of political activist and historian Howard Zinn. Probably most known for his seminal A People’s History of the United States, Zinn’s contributions are too great for this post to do any justice to. That said, the Boston Globe published a great piece, which includes many of the sentiments that I share. Sometimes, things just can’t be said better than others have. So in the words of the Globe staff, Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck, here are my views on the significance of his loss.

From the Globe: “For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. ’A People’s History of the United States‘ (1980), his best-known book, had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and union organizers of the 1930s.”

My addition: If you’ve never read this book PLEASE GO OUT AND GET A COPY NOW! When we think of our country, many of us do so in the ways that the writers state. But remember, it was community organizing and advocacy that led to: a) our freedom from the Empire; b) the abolition of slavery; and c) the women’s rights movement. When everyday citizens are active, we make change happen. When we work together as a community, our impact is even greater. And if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that we’ve been documenting the high “return on investment” of funding directed towards advocacy, organizing and civic engagement under our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.

From Noam Chomsky: “Dr. Zinn's writings "simply changed perspective and understanding for a whole generation. He opened up approaches to history that were novel and highly significant. Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement."

My addition: Chomsky and Zinn have forever changed my perspective on myriad issues. Ranging from the intellectually “jargon-esque” writings to the Boston University strike referenced in the Globe article, Zinn always will be of significant influence on the way I think and act. Academia is all well and good and I love the epistemological. But when we talk basic civil and human rights grounded in that “jargon,” that’s what really gets me fired up! Not only is there power in numbers, but there is always hope for a better tomorrow when we’re civically engaged and active.

From Ben Affleck: “"He taught me how valuable – how necessary – dissent was to democracy and to America itself. He taught that history was made by the everyman, not the elites. "
My addition: Now we’re really talking! Without dissent, there is no democracy and vice versa. All points of view are equally valid and everyone’s voice counts. If we agreed on everything, would we ever change existing structures and institutions that might be unjust? Our first amendment rights may be guaranteed by the Constitution but they’re an essential piece of how we treat each other. (And PLEASE feel free to disagree with anything here – seriously, that is what the comments are for and I’d love to engage in some constructive dialogue). As I noted in Values chapter of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best, the role of dissent is an essential component of policy advocacy and leads to a more just and inclusive society in which all of us are better off.

In Dr. Zinn’s own words: "From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble."

Hm … how does one add to the man himself?! Well, all I can say is this: Education is necessary, but not sufficient. It’s the second piece of acting on that huge knowledge base whenever we see injustice anywhere which, from my perspective, is one of the primary purposes of being educated. As my mentor john powell points out to me sometimes, in Jefferson’s mind, one wasn’t a citizen of this country simply by virtue of being born here. One had to earn that citizenship and the means to earning it was an education.

So, why education? Because, as Dr. Zinn said, education prepares us to speak out and ACT out against inequity. And if you watched the SOTU last night, you couldn’t have missed the emphasis on education reform and this administration’s commitment to ensuring high-quality education for our country’s children and youth. It’s time to take a big step back from our current system and really see what works and what doesn’t and how, working together, the civic sector can complement federal and state level government work like the “Race to the Top fund” to level the playing field in education. (Check out this excellent article written by NCRP board member Pete Manzo on this issue).

As we celebrate the many successes and acknowledge the challenges we still confront after one year of the Obama administration’s being in office, I hope each of us will take the time to reflect on what Zinn’s passing really means for us as a country. What does his work mean for us today? Will we find common cause and work together to help our country emerge stronger and better from the critical crossroads we confront? I sure hope we will and though my heart may be heavy from the loss of such an influential and brilliant man, my spirits are lifted when I think of the work he’s made possible and the millions of lives he’s touched in so many ways. Thank you for everything Dr. Zinn – I’ll certainly never forget you.

Niki Jagpal,
Research & Policy Director

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: 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).