Back Donate
Donate

The Funders Concerned About AIDS conference last month was both inspiring and sobering.

I was encouraged to learn that HIV-related grantmaking grew 10 percent from 2014 to 2015, outpacing overall foundation giving. Long-term investments in syringe access programs have helped reduce the incidence of HIV infections caused by dirty needles from one in three, to one in 10 new infections. Yet the ongoing needs for such support far outstrip the resources available from the Syringe Access Fund.

I was excited to hear the Obama Administration’s first out transgender person to serve as the White House’s LGBT liaison, who convened trans women of color to hear their concerns. On the other hand, I also learned that trans and LGBT immigrants held in detention by Obama’s Immigration Control and Enforcement bureau (ICE) – after fleeing violence and discrimination in their home countries – are reportedly experiencing harsh and unsafe conditions.

For better or worse, HIV and AIDS were under the radar of the major party candidates during the election, escaping the media glare. Yet the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was very much the subject of political debate and will most likely be repealed by the incoming Congress, has enabled at least 90,000 people living with HIV to get health coverage. The ACA forbids insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, a crucial provision not only for people with HIV/AIDS but also for transgender individuals, for whom transitioning has been considered a “pre-existing condition.”

And women are at serious risk if the ACA is repealed and/or Medicaid is targeted for cuts. A speaker reported that currently one in five women receives health coverage through Medicaid. For women of color the proportion is even higher.

It was inspiring to learn that government health programs, hard won by advocacy, combined with innovative foundation-funded nonprofit programs, have helped curb HIV infections and increase access to health care. That this could all unravel in the next few years is dispiriting.

Yet the FCAA conference left me hopeful for several reasons, and I urge others in philanthropy to similarly draw inspiration:

1. Many speakers emphasized the intersectionality of their work and relationships. Even government agencies are coordinating more among themselves. Unity and collaboration will be essential to challenging and weathering any attacks on the health care safety net.

2. HIV/AIDS advocates and funders are clear-eyed, creative and bold. This is a tight knit community that had to fight just to have the very existence of this ravaging disease be acknowledged, that has long demanded government and private sector action but didn’t wait for it to come. As one speaker said, “There is no box” anymore; the new policy environment will require bravely thinking and acting outside the box.

3. Today women of color, trans leaders and marginalized LGBTQ individuals, such as formerly incarcerated, are some of the strongest voices for change. And FCAA is one of the few funder conferences to be so inclusive of these historically disenfranchised constituencies. All of philanthropy will need to partner with and support grassroots leaders to build inclusive, powerful movements that can fight for justice in the coming years.

FCAA has already formed an advocacy network in response to the new political landscape, and its first webinar is on January 30th. What are other affinity groups doing to help their members keep up with policy developments and take action? Let us know in the comments section or on Twitter.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior director of assessment and special projects for the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Follow her on Twitter and see her and other live tweets of the FCAA conference on Storify.

This commentary was originally published on Nonprofit Quarterly.

When A Foundation Gets In The Way of Community Impact

Last month brought the announcement that William Penn Foundation executive director Laura Sparks has accepted the position of president at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, a college in New York City founded on principles of equity and inclusion. Given Sparks’ longstanding commitment to underserved urban communities and demonstrated leadership capacities, this should bode well for Cooper Union. But what does it mean for the William Penn Foundation, a $2.4 billion family foundation that has been plagued with leadership challenges over the last several years? And, more importantly, what about the residents of Philadelphia?

In 2014, I conducted a Philamplify assessment of the foundation, asking “Is Philadelphia’s Leading Philanthropy Back on Track?” During that time, William Penn had just gone through a tumultuous period. One CEO, Jeremy Nowak, whose leadership style was blunt and whose education stances aroused controversy, departed after only 16 months, having disrupted the quiet, understated style of the Haas family. Helen Davis Picher did her best to limit damage and steady the boat as interim president for more than a year. Meanwhile, the board downgraded the top staff position from “president and CEO” to “managing director,” making it very clear from the job description that the family would maintain control over key hiring and firing decisions and other duties normally entrusted to a chief executive.

Just as our report was coming out, word came down that Peter Degnan, a former academic vice dean of finance, had been hired for this new position. When we discussed our report findings with him, he was very receptive to our recommendations, particularly that the board should better reflect the diversity of the city it served.

Degnan was gone within six months.

This time the board acted more quickly, promoting Laura Sparks from within to become “executive director.” The title change was meant to signal a move back toward greater executive authority, perhaps because Sparks was a trusted, known quantity as chief philanthropy officer. Sparks had impressed our team during the Philamplify review process as someone who had a genuine commitment to equity and to ensuring that William Penn was an effective partner to its grantees. As the number-two program staffer, she had already taken steps to address many of the critiques raised in our surveys and interviews with hundreds of nonprofits and local stakeholders.

But Sparks lasted just two years before announcing her departure. However the move was messaged, one can only wonder what would prompt someone to leave her perch as the head of the biggest funder in Philly, doling out more than $100 million a year in grants for education, the environment, and the arts.

To recap: In five years, William Penn has gone through four executive leadership changes. What hasn’t changed much is the board leadership, and therein may lie the problem.

According to its website, “A corporation composed of Haas family members governs the William Penn Foundation, along with a board that includes both family members and public directors selected for their professional and civic expertise.” Our report praised the foundation for welcoming next generation Haas family members onto the board, but we also critiqued the board for its lack of diversity. It has gone in the direction of fewer and less diverse outside voices over time.

Currently, it appears that all board members are white and from the professional class; two-thirds are male. Yet Philadelphia’s residents are almost two-thirds people of color, and more than a quarter live in poverty. While the “civic expertise” of non-family board members is no doubt valuable, it is not lived experience shared by the vast majority of Philly residents.

Aside from the serious problem of lack of diversity, we also noted in the report that several interviewees identified “volatility among the family leadership as a key challenge” and found that “William Penn has struggled to find the right balance in governance and leadership style that is true to the Haas legacy and effectively supports mission implementation.”

Sparks’ departure suggests these dysfunctions within the board have not been resolved. One foundation CEO with knowledge of the situation said, “I’m not surprised Laura left. What the board is trying to do is not functional. They want a functionary and a manager, not a leader, and that isn’t going to work.”

We didn’t call out specific individuals in our report, but perhaps our choice to be circumspect merely helps perpetuate the problem. Informants close to the foundation pointed to the unpredictable leadership of Janet and David Haas, who are reportedly often at odds with each other, as the source of the board’s challenges. One knowledgeable source said:

They need strong leadership. The place has to evolve. […] [David and Janet] are the two ultimate rulers over there. Right now, it’s been about them for the last 10 or 15 years, and it will be about them for the next 10 years. […] I don’t give a [hoot] who they bring in there, unless Janet’s role is real defined and she can’t overreach, unless she gets in a role that is legitimate and manageable, it’s going to be hard. Defining Janet’s role in that foundation is critical to its future.

As the “800-pound gorilla” of philanthropy in Philadelphia, the fallout from William Penn’s family dynamic is being felt by the city’s residents, particularly through its arts, education, and environmental grants. With the waning local presence of Annenberg Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts, William Penn is the most influential local funder, whether it wants to be or not. Its volatility at the top and failure to exercise coherent and consistent public leadership hinders its impact on the very communities it seeks to benefit.

For example, our report found that this volatility affected the foundation’s education equity agenda and damaged the capacity of nonprofits advocating and organizing for more public funding for the starved public education system. Much of that work had to be rebuilt under Sparks.

I urge the board to take three steps to strengthen its capacity to serve Philadelphia’s pressing needs:

  1. Recruit to the board knowledgeable Philly leaders of color and others who understand the experiences of marginalized groups, such as the LBGTQ community and residents with disabilities.In doing so, William Penn can gradually increase the percentage of non-family board members, ensuring that diverse perspectives can support better decision making.
  2. Develop and publicly share a succession plan that invests in new board leadership, with a clear timetable for David and Janet Haas to cede power to others in the family, as well as future non-family board members. Transparency will build confidence among Philadelphians that the status quo will not continue indefinitely.
  3. Return to a President/CEO chief executive role. A $2.4 billion foundation with ambitious goals and high caliber staff needs a leader at the top who is fully empowered to execute the foundation’s vision for a more equitable and vibrant city. Many excellent candidates will be dissuaded from seeking the top role if they fear they will be hamstrung by board overreach and volatility.

These recommendations are based on the extensive feedback I received from the foundation’s own constituents. It underscores that not only is the Haas legacy at stake, but more importantly, also on the line is the potential for William Penn to continue to do great things for its home city, in partnership with the communities it has been serving in one form or another for more than 70 years.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior director of assessment and special projects at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), where she leads Philamplify, an initiative that combines expert assessment and critical stakeholder feedback to improve grantmaking practices and boost equitable outcomes in communities. Follow @lisa_rang and @NCRP on Twitter.

“Relationships develop at the speed of trust” was an oft-repeated truism spoken at the place-based philanthropy conference Towards a More Resilient Place, co-hosted by The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions and Neighborhood Funders Group. Yet very quickly conference speakers seemed to signal their trust of other participants by taking the conversation to a deep and personal level.

During the opening plenary on the topic of “community resilience” panelists reminded us that there’s personal hurt from injustice and that resilience is a double-edged sword. When communities suffering from decades of racism and disinvestment are described as “resilient,” it almost implies that they can keep enduring under that mantle of oppression for years more, perhaps allowing further complacency by those with the power and resources to do something about it. As one leader said, “The New Orleans community wants to be made whole, not just resilient.”

Another funder noted wryly that “Philanthropy loves a crisis,” but longstanding inequities are just as much a crisis as the Flint water situation. Several grantmakers described how crises both immediate and long-term caused them to look at their impact to date and conclude that their status quo grantmaking approach was no longer an option. In embarking on new paths these philanthropic leaders entered into “tough conversations” and opened themselves to critical feedback from the communities they seek to benefit. This included examining their own institution’s role in creating or perpetuating inequity. And it meant grappling with what Sarah Eagle Heart, CEO of Native Americans in Philanthropy, called philanthropy’s “hesitancy to learn a worldview that is not the majority worldview.”

Part of learning a new worldview is realizing that philanthropy should not always be creating or setting the “table” for community engagement and problem solving, but rather should find out what tables already exist in the community and ask whether and how it can be part of those tables. We often talk about “building the capacity of communities and residents to be at the table” but don’t reflect on what capacities philanthropy needs to be at community tables, like the capacity to understand other worldviews and one’s own privileged perch.

Philanthropy already has the capacity, but not often the willingness, to take risks. This convening attracted grantmakers who are willing to experience profound discomfort in their quest to break out of the traditional philanthropic mold of RFPs and competitive grant processes. In doing so, they seek to relate from a place of love, not fear. They are often met with confusion, caution and distrust from community leaders initially, which is understandable after decades of burned bridges and failed expectations between foundations and many communities. Relationships develop at the speed of trust.

Leticia Peguero, Executive Director of the Andrus Family Fund, urged us all to embrace a hashtag call to action: #hayotraforma (#thereisanotherway). It is the way of vulnerable, authentic relationships; of more agile, community-led grantmaking; of disruptive approaches that challenge oppressive economic and political structures.

This conference experience and my colleague Caitlin Duffy’s recent blog post have challenged me to examine my own privileged perch as a white, middle class woman who wants to support racial and economic justice. How am I getting outside of my comfort zone in this work? What are the opportunities for me to take more risks?

I don’t yet know the answers. But I know there is another way. It won’t be an easy one, but it will be more likely to lead to personal and social transformation.

new-on-blog-ncrp-org-2Lisa Ranghelli is senior director of assessment and special projects at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), where she leads Philamplify, an initiative that combines expert assessment and critical stakeholder feedback to improve grantmaking practices and boost equitable outcomes in communities. Follow @lisa_rang and @NCRP on Twitter.

Photo by Lisa Ranghelli.

Interest from Oregon nonprofits prompted NCRP to host an information-sharing webinar on August 4 about our latest Philamplify report, Oregon Community Foundation: Can It Build a Statewide Legacy of Equity and Inclusion?

View the presentation slides and watch a recording of the webinar.

To create a safe space for Oregon community leaders to share candid questions and comments about OCF, we did not invite the foundation to participate in the webinar. However, Kathleen Cornett, vice president for grants & programs, graciously responded in writing to several questions asked by webinar attendees:

1. How are voluntary community grant evaluators solicited, vetted and chosen? If someone is interested in becoming an evaluator, how does s/he let the foundation know?

OCF uses about 1600 volunteers in many capacities including scholarship committee volunteers, community field of interest advisors, leadership council members, special project coordinators and grant evaluators. Interested parties should contact OCF’s community engagement officer, Carly Brown at Cbrown[at]oregoncf.org, or give her a call at (503) 227-6846.

Grant evaluators are people with knowledge of and experience working in the nonprofit sector but are not currently employed by a nonprofit that might also be an applicant. OCF staff and volunteers regularly scan the community for likely evaluators, with an eye toward diversifying our volunteer ranks. When people become volunteer grant evaluators, they experience orientation and then regular training during grant cycles, plus biannual statewide training. The nature of the work requires that evaluators have availability during business hours during two intense periods of activity in spring and fall and plan to be involved for a long-term commitment.

A couple times a year we hold an informational meeting to explain the grant evaluator position to interested folks. Afterwards, if they are still interested, they fill out an application form outlining their interests and qualifications, including references. As openings occur, we bring people on and train them. Sometimes it’s a bit of time until we have openings. The position description is outlined on the OCF website.

2. How does a small culturally-specific organization get on OCF’s radar?

Generally, the Community Grant Program application process serves as the “front door” to OCF. It is not necessary, but prior to an application culturally specific organizations are welcome to contact OCF – either a regional staff person, a program officer or a Leadership Council member. If it is more comfortable, culturally specific organizations may contact Roberto Franco (Rfranco[at]oregoncf.org) or Mirna Loreli Cibrian (Mcibrian[at]oregoncf.org) through the Latino Partnership Program or someone associated with OCF they may know personally. We endeavor to be welcoming and forthright no matter which approach is made.

3. Is applying for a community grant the best way to become known/visible to DAFs? Is there some other way?

Yes, applying is the best method since Community Grant applications are shared with Advised Fund Donors based on donor interests. It is also possible to contact donor relations officers for informational meetings, but please understand their availability is quite limited. Donors themselves sometimes bring organizations to the foundation’s attention.

4. Who ultimately decides whether community organizing and advocacy receive funding: OCF staff or OCF board?

All grant decisions are made by the OCF board of directors who begin their deliberations based on a set of staff recommendations.

5. What are OCF’s next steps on the heels of this report?

On November 5, 2014 OCF adopted a policy statement on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI). We have created a comprehensive EDI framework that guides our EDI focus and is grounded in four goal areas:

  • Diversity of People and Perspectives: Strengthen the diversity of the OCF family and foster an inclusive culture.
  • Cultural Agility: Educate and train the OCF family and enhance communication to increase awareness.
  • Effective Community Engagement: Engage with diverse communities, convene leaders and partners, strengthen regional strategies and commit to supplier diversity.
  • Impact on Equity and Disparities: Increase funding to diverse constituents, diversify the donor base, improve date collection and leverage our research capacity.

Each goal is supported by strategies and tactics that are assigned to key individuals and groups in order for us to achieve tangible and measurable progress. The rigor of this approach, which includes quarterly reporting to staff and board, holds us accountable. We invite various stakeholders to give us input and join us in this journey which counters or balances any internal biases.

Although social justice is not the focus of OCF’s work, it is something the foundation funds. We plan to make this work more visible to those outside the organization. And we continue to deepen our knowledge of historically marginalized populations, with ongoing consideration of what this means for us in terms of best practices in grant making.

6. Who should people contact if they have concerns or advice related to EDI – would it be Sheila Murty?

As OCF VP for Operations, Sheila leads OCF’s equity work and is a good point of contact. She can connect people with the right folks within OCF. Her email is Smurty[at]oregoncf.org.

Thanks to OCF for answering questions from our webinar attendees. If you’re interested in continuing the conversation with peer Oregon nonprofits, sharing your story or learning more about the report, email Ben Barge at bbarge[at]ncrp.org and join the #Philamplify conversation on Twitter and philamplify.org.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior director of assessment and special projects at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), where she leads Philamplify, an initiative that combines expert assessment and critical stakeholder feedback to improve grantmaking practices and boost equitable outcomes in communities. Follow @lisa_rang and @ncrp on Twitter.

Updated 8/31/2016

It’s that time of year when kids go back to school, and luckily each year tends to be a fresh experience for students – new teachers, new curriculum and often new peers in the classroom. But for teachers and administrators, and sometimes even students, it can feel like the same old thing.

Not so in the Silverton School District, located in the northern Willamette Valley of Oregon. As Marie Traeger knows well, teachers and school leaders are changing it up. After teaching for 28 years, Traeger embraced the opportunity to help the whole district overhaul its evaluation and professional development systems for teachers and administrators. This may sound like dry human resources work, but it’s transforming how learning happens in the classroom, and how teachers and administrators collaborate.

Traeger, the collaboration grant manager for the district, explained, “We are learning practices to help improve teaching, do continual learning, more student directed learning. It’s a difficult thing to get to, because it means teachers have to release the power of the learning responsibility to the students.”

The ultimate goal is to increase student success. “One of the greatest successes of the grant was an ’AHA!’ by one of our veteran teachers. This teacher used to stand in front of the class and lecture for most of the period. With a strategy learned through professional development, this teacher learned ways to gradually release responsibilities to the class and saw increased test scores and better wellbeing for the teacher.”

This quiet revolution in teaching and learning is thanks in large part to the Chalkboard Project, launched in 2004 by Foundations for a Better Oregon’s six founding members: The Collins Foundation, The Ford Family Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, James F. & Marion L. Miller Foundation, The Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) and Wendt Family Foundation.

Chalkboard researches and pilots promising practices to transform Oregon’s K–12 public school system to produce high quality schools, have stable funding, elevate student success and eliminate disparities in student achievement. Oregon’s high school graduation rate of 72 percent lags behind the national level of 82 percent, and for several racial and ethnic groups the rates are even lower.

After extensively engaging teachers, administrators and parents, Chalkboard’s leaders decided to focus on elevating teacher and school leader effectiveness and developed Creative Leadership Achieves Student Success (CLASS). It provides mentoring and coaching to school districts that can demonstrate collaboration among the superintendent, school board and teachers’ union, to develop new career paths for teachers, meaningful performance evaluation, relevant professional development and alternative compensation models. CLASS has achieved demonstrable improvements in student achievement, which is why it is being implemented in the Silverton school district.

Another core strategy adopted by the Chalkboard Project is advocacy to advance state education policy. Informed by the successful CLASS initiative, Chalkboard’s advocacy achievements included establishment of the School District Collaboration Grant Program, which incentivizes CLASS expansion.

In an interview with NCRP, OCF CEO Max Williams said Chalkboard has leveraged its limited dollars effectively:

“In districts where it has implemented programs with research and evaluation, we’ve seen dramatically positive improvements. It was patient money that had to wait, and eventually we were able to make policy changes. … [O]ur little bit of money that we invested over years is now leveraging probably $30–$40 million a year in state money to build the model in [other] parts of the state.”

According to Chalkboard executive director Sue Hildick, after conducting an equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) audit, in 2014 Chalkboard developed an EDI framework and three-year workplan, which contains specific goals, strategies and actions.

“We ran three pilot programs that touched 65 percent of school kids in the state… and we are seeing opportunity gaps closing across some groups but not all,” said Hildick. “So we spent the last three years in a deep space about race and inequity and how to propel change in those areas.”

I see three key lessons in this story for funder collaboratives:

  1. If you are trying to change systems, you’ve got to be in it for the long haul. The Chalkboard grantmakers have been at it for more than a decade, taking time to engage stakeholders in shaping strategy and using data to inform mid-course corrections.
  2. Policy advocacy is an essential tool in systems change. While a lot can be done by improving and aligning services and programs, ultimately most issues require better policies or more public resources to achieve progress. The resources of foundations, even when pooled, will always be dwarfed by public funding.
  3. Equity has to be an explicit, upfront goal if you want to reduce disparities. Often a rising tide does not lift all boats, especially if systems perpetuate disparities, even unintentionally. Chalkboard’s EDI audit helped identify areas for strategy refinement. Ideally, equity focus is built in at the beginning of the initiative.

Kudos to Foundations for a Better Oregon for incorporating all three. As a result, Traeger believes that Silverton will see better outcomes for underserved populations with the CLASS approach. “With the shift of students being engaged more, that is going to help students with language barriers and different styles of learning. Doing the same thing for everyone doesn’t work.”

Lisa Ranghelli is senior director of assessment and special projects at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), where she leads Philamplify, an initiative that combines expert assessment and critical stakeholder feedback to improve grantmaking practices and boost equitable outcomes in communities.

“When [donors] come here … they get an invitation to be part of a group of donors that can solve important problems or be more aware of what’s going on in specific communities or around the state.” – Max Williams, President and CEO, The Oregon Community Foundation (OCF)

“There are very few foundations that are willing to get beyond the comfort level of social service to fund social change. … If they can only understand that what politics is about is building communities better, maybe they could open themselves more.” – A DAF holder at OCF

All community foundations face the challenge of serving the different and often divergent charitable interests of each individual donor while also generating investment that will systemically address community issues and needs. According to CFLeads, a key building block of community leadership by community foundations is to “engage donors and other co-investors in community leadership work.” How well do community foundation staff walk that fine line in their relationships with donor advisors to cultivate their leadership?

Our recent Philamplify assessments of Oregon Community Foundation and the New York Community Trust examined each institution’s donor engagement approach. The Trust is a big-city grantmaker with a donor relations team of six. OCF is a statewide foundation with regional offices and a donor relations staff of 14.

As we reported, “OCF’s donor engagement is proactive and robust. The community foundation connects donors to community grant applications, invites support for its special initiatives and offers educational events where donors can connect with staff, professional advisors, other donors and nonprofit organizations.” OCF has also begun efforts to reach new and more diverse donor audiences, for example by hosting a targeted event, Women Give: Creating Impact with Money.

In contrast, we found the Trust’s donor engagement approach to be less dynamic and effective. The foundation hosts around six donor briefings per year, yet staff reports that attendance among its 1,300 donors is low. Trust program officers serve as a resource to donors with particular interests, and the Trust solicits DAF funding for some of its special initiatives and funder collaboratives. Attracting more diverse donors is an ongoing challenge, despite the diversity of the donor relations staff. Yet the Trust has a low financial threshold for establishing a DAF: $5,000, compared to $25,000 at OCF.

To serve a geographically dispersed set of constituencies in urban and rural areas, OCF has developed unique structures to engage donors, volunteers and residents that include regional offices, leadership councils and volunteer grants evaluators. Regional and statewide events bring these constituencies together, often with grantees.

Both OCF and NYCT could do more to connect their donor advisors to social change nonprofits, especially those led by people of color and other underserved groups seeking to advance equity. NCRP research has found a significant return for investments in such organizations: as much as $115 for every dollar spent.

Social change leaders in Oregon see DAFs as mysterious and OCF staff as “gatekeepers” who are reluctant to connect their donors to advocacy and organizing efforts. As part of OCF’s recent commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion, the staff is grappling with how to do this effectively. Senior donor relations officer Kirsten Kilchenstein explained, “There are polarizing trigger words … We’re learning how to use language and bring folks together around shared interests to improve lives for underserved … communities who have been historically disadvantaged.” An OCF donor survey found that many donors already have an appetite to “engage more deeply with other donors and OCF around key issues in the state,” including equity.

And both foundations could do a better job of communicating publicly their vision for an equitable community and how donors can be part of realizing that vision. For example, NCRP Impact Award winner the California Community Foundation (CCF) communicates on its website very clearly that it “advocates for those who struggle” and invests in systemic change. CCF offers donors the option to invest in the Future of Los Angeles Fund to address pressing issues, as well as encouraging donors to help “transform L.A.”

If you are interested in rallying your donors to advance equity, ask yourself these questions:

  1. How does your website convey this purpose? How do your newsletters and other communications with donors make the case?
  2. Do you have strategies and benchmarks for donor investment in community change organizations, and offer vehicles for donors to easily invest?
  3. How do you foster interaction between donors and residents of color and culturally specific nonprofits?

A public vision for an equitable community that donors can rally around; intentional conversations with donors about equity, and networking among donors and social change nonprofits; and specific funding vehicles that provide an easy way for donors to contribute to advancing systemic change – these are three ways community foundations can exercise leadership in partnership with their donors to address longstanding disparities for communities of color, LGBTQ communities, people with disabilities and others.

Community foundations are complex institutions, distinct from place to place, but they have much to learn from each other in a common pursuit of equity and justice.

Lisa Ranghelli is director of foundation assessment at NCRP.

What other strategies are you aware of? Share them in the comments section or join the conversation on Twitter @NCRP and #Philamplify.

Images by Michael Silberstein, van Ort and Eli Duke. Modified under Creative Commons license.

Updated: 6/22/2016, 11:45 EDT

Our newest Philamplify report looks at Oregon, a state founded on racial exclusion that today has increasingly vibrant, diverse communities across its urban and rural landscapes.

Nearly 25 percent of Oregon’s residents are people of color, and an estimated 5 percent identify as LGBTQ. These communities are fighting effectively for justice and to end discrimination and disparities of all kinds. But they need more resources to turn the tide. Only 5 percent of philanthropic giving in Oregon directly serves these populations.

The Oregon Community Foundation is the largest foundation in Oregon and the 8th community foundation largest in the country, holding $1.5 billion in assets. Unlike most community foundations, OCF has statewide reach through regional offices that engage government, business and community leaders, residents, donors and volunteers.  It can leverage these relationships to be a champion for equity.

How is OCF responding to the pressing challenges faced by Oregonians and what can we learn from it? 

After examining OCF’s giving and feedback from its constituents, we found that OCF is trying hard to embrace equity, diversity and inclusion in all its operations and grantmaking. Yet many leaders of color and LGBTQ leaders don’t see signs of progress yet. 

My colleague Caitlin Duffy and I share our analysis in Philamplify’s The Oregon Community Foundation: Can It Build a Statewide Legacy of Equity and Inclusion? released today.

Our additional findings offer valuable insights for other community foundations and place-based grantmakers:

  • OCF’s innovative use of regional leadership councils and volunteer grant evaluators is effective at fostering connections with communities across the state, but these bodies need to be more diverse and inclusive to support communities of color.
  • OCF offers responsive grant programs and also runs strategic initiatives to tackle systemic issues such as education and dental health – often in collaboration with other foundations.
  • OCF has expanded its Latino Partnership Program to respond to the growing and diverse Latino population in Oregon. Yet overall, grants for nonprofits led by people of color, LGBTQ leaders and others organizing for justice are still a small percentage of the foundation’s giving.
  • OCF is changing its risk-averse reputation to become nimbler and bolder as an advocate and public leader.

Numerous nonprofit leaders and peers of The Oregon Community Foundation characterized OCF as a slow-moving ship that knows where it wants to go but is taking a long time to get there. Given the critical issues that Oregon is facing such as widespread homelessness, racial inequity and public underfunding of education, many from Oregon’s nonprofit community are impatient to see OCF respond more decisively.

How can OCF boost its impact?

To build on its strengths and help move the needle on the critical challenges faced by Oregon’s vulnerable communities, we urge The Oregon Community Foundation to:

  • Direct a higher proportion of grant funding toward groups facing disparities. Publicly share OCF’s equity, diversity and inclusion goals, benchmarks and data on its progress.
  • Fund more grassroots organizing and advocacy to advance equity and other systemic goals aligned with the foundation’s strategic priorities.
  • Be bolder in taking public stands, especially on equity-related policy issues. Partner with constituent-led organizations fighting for equity when deciding which issues would benefit from OCF’s advocacy.
  • Expand OCF’s efforts to diversify donors, engage them on equity issues and connect them to organizations led by people of color and other constituent-led groups working for systems change.

Read about our full findings and recommendations now.

What do you think of our findings and recommendations? Agree or disagree, and comment on the report. Also, don’t forget to take our latest poll and share which foundation you think we should Philamplify next. Remember, you can do all these anonymously!

With your input, we can provide OCF and other foundations with the feedback they need to be more effective partners of nonprofits and communities in making this world equitable and just for all.

Lisa Ranghelli is director of foundation assessment at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Follow @NCRP on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Images by Michael Silberstein, van Ort and Eli Duke, adapted under CC license.

Because of their unique position and vantage point on the ground in cities and states across America, community foundations can play an important role in uniting donors, nonprofits, residents, businesses and policymakers to address systemic inequities in our communities.

More than 20 years ago, NCRP looked at 10 large urban community foundations across the country. The study found that a majority of these community foundations “have been generally unresponsive to the least advantaged members of their home communities” and “most also shied away completely from funding of the most grassroots organizations, community organizing, issue advocacy or social advocacy projects, and public policy initiatives.”

Are community foundations more responsive today?

I am eager to share New York Community Trust: How Can This Equity Funder Rally Donors And Deepen Grassroots Engagement to Further Its Impact?, which I authored with NCRP Project Associate Caitlin Duffy. The report contains findings of Philamplify’s first assessment of a community foundation.

Established in 1923 to alleviate human suffering and poverty and to promote human justice, NYCT is the third largest community foundation in the country.

The New York Community Trust very clearly seeks to advance equity and address the systems that perpetuate injustice. In many ways, the foundation has been successful, but its donor-advised funds largely overlook grassroots nonprofits. Its competitive grants provide very limited support for neighborhood organizations, especially those led by or directly organizing people of color.

Our other findings include:

  • The Trust primarily funds service delivery improvement and advocacy to advance equity.
  • The Trust works effectively with other funders, grantees and local government to tackle key issues facing the city. Yet it rarely takes public positions on policy issues.
  • The Trust is creative in its use of bequests to respond to changing community needs, but hasn’t been as effective in engaging living donors.
  • Nonprofits value the Trust staff for their expertise, honesty and accessibility. They want more opportunities to meet with other grantees and with donors, and also seek more flexibly long-term funding.
  • What is the Trust’s larger vision for New York City? Many of its stakeholders are wondering.

To achieve even greater impact, we urge the Trust to:

  • Increase funding and capacity building to smaller and more grassroots community organizing groups and organizations led by people of color, which represent the majority of New York City residents.
  • Take a stand more often and use the Trust’s bully pulpit when in the best interests of underserved communities.
  • More creatively engage donors and connect them with nonprofits and affected communities.
  • Increase multi-year grants and core support for equity-oriented nonprofits.
  • Present unified vision, values, goals and strategies and improve communication to its constituents. A clear and compelling vision could help rally donors, other grantmakers, nonprofits and members of the community around common goals to boost equitable outcomes for New York City residents.

Read about our full findings and recommendations now.

What do you think of our findings and recommendations? Agree or disagree, and comment on the report. Also, don’t forget to take our latest poll and share which foundation you’d think we should Philamplify next. Remember, you can do all these anonymously!

With your help, we can provide the Trust and other foundations with the feedback they need to be more effective partners of nonprofits and communities in making this world equitable and just for all.

Lisa Ranghelli is director of foundation assessment at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Follow @NCRP on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

I attended the Grantmakers in Health conference in San Diego earlier this month and came back impressed, inspired, energized and infuriated.

As a first time attendee, I was impressed by the consistent attention to equity. I learned at the newcomer welcome session that GIH will explore this theme throughout the year, including doing scans of the field to learn about equity and policy engagement work among local health funders. (Presumably timed for the conference, GIH has a 24-page special insert to the Spring 2016 edition of Stanford Social Innovation Review entitled “Innovations In Health Equity.”)

In side conversations, several attendees mentioned to me that their foundations were newly embracing equity and/or a social determinants of health approach in their grantmaking. It definitely felt like equity was in the air! I was inspired by the courageous leaders I heard speak in plenaries and workshops. Two sessions in particular stood out for me. One was the panel at the health equity breakfast: Deaconess Foundation CEO (and NCRP board member) Rev. Starsky Wilson, ISAIAH Executive Director Doran Schrantz and Fathers and Families San Joaquin Executive Director Samuel Nuñez. (All have articles in the SSIR supplement, where you can read more about their work.)

Wilson, whose leadership has been instrumental in helping community leaders move from protest to policy change in Ferguson, Missouri, told us, “We must have the courage to deploy our privilege, and we must turn the equity lens on ourselves.” To be effective champions for equity, grantmakers should “keep close, be calm and bring cash” – stay close to the community both individually and institutionally, align your strategy accordingly, and be flexible about when and how you make funds available.

Schrantz, a community organizer, said that we must reclaim the role of “politics with a small-p” in our communities. “Politics is our human right to come together” and denying this right damages our wellness. Nuñez spoke eloquently about the importance of helping youth see themselves as tools for both culturally-based healing and social justice.

The second inspiring session, which was truly “mind-blowing” in the words of another attendee, featured Nancy Csuti and Gwyn Barley describing the radical shift in grantmaking underway at The Colorado Trust. Seeking a re-orientation from “disparities” to “equity,” the Trust consulted a range of thinkers and practitioners from Anthony Iton at The California Endowment to Schrantz and Prof. jon powell.

Trust staff concluded that nonprofits can unwittingly edge out resident voices and decided to pursue direct place-based resident-driven work. The Trust replaced all of its program staff with new “community partners” who act as grassroots organizers around the state and have no prior experience in philanthropy. Barley, director of community partnerships and grants, challenged the concept and title “program officer,” which she said “is about control and management.” Trust staff also began an internal process to create an organizational culture that embodies diversity, equity and inclusion.

Community partners have spent the last year building relationships with residents in the most struggling communities in Colorado. Trust funding has gone to local residents to serve as part-time organizers, and to support community engagement by providing child care, food and transportation. Each group of residents will create plans for their region under the broad “health equity” platform, which the Trust will fund, anticipating this to be a 10-year process. The Trust’s board will approve budgets but has ceded its authority to approve the resident plans – exemplifying its faith in the communities to come up with solid strategies.

I was energized by the new connections I made with thoughtful, compassionate people in different stages of their careers and serving varied roles within their institutions. I was energized every time I could offer a resource to help them, whether from NCRP or another organization. I was encouraged by seeing the lively small group conversations happening in the session I moderated on grantmaker agility, as attendees explored how strong relationships and feedback loops with their nonprofit partners can foster greater dexterity.

I was infuriated by some of the stark statistics and data I heard about the diabetes epidemic facing our youth, the dearth of funding to study and combat gun violence, the medical establishment’s resistance to proven “integrative” therapies like yoga, meditation and acupuncture, and the political and bureaucratic roadblocks to improving services for veterans. But I was inspired by the leaders who are trying to address these issues. Whether they wear the label of advocate or not, they are challenging the status quo every day.

The GIH conference was impressive, inspiring, energizing, infuriating and more. The location was stunning, with heated outdoor swimming pools and beaches steps away, and the food was healthful, varied and delicious. In addition to these health-promoting aspects, an onsite spa beckoned with massages and facials for those willing to splurge.

In other words, like so many funder conferences, it reminded me how truly elitist philanthropy is as an institution. I realize that conference planners want to entice potential registrants with vacation-like settings and perks. GIH apparently hit new highs with more than 600 registrants.

I won’t pretend that I didn’t enjoy the perks myself. But the air of privilege and wealth, combined with the typical practice of excluding nonprofits unless they’ve been invited to speak for a panel, workshop or site visit, made the experience feel all the more exclusive.

As more affinity groups and grantmakers embrace equity, how can we re-imagine conferences to better reflect the equitable world we envision? Perhaps grantmakers can look to organizations like Race Forward and PolicyLink for ideas on how their conferences can even better align with their values.

Lisa Ranghelli is director of foundation assessment at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Image by John Hickey-Fry, adapted under CC license.