Back Donate
Donate

Not enough philanthropic support is going to communities left behind by Atlanta’s economy, fueled in part by the city’s reputation as progressive and welcoming. That’s the crux of a report recently released by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) and Grantmakers for Southern Progress,  “As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit.”

The report is part of a series released by the two organizations examining giving throughout the South. Past reports have looked at the lack of investment from national funders and reticence to support communities vulnerable to climate change.

Read the entire article in Inside Philanthropy.

While progressives generally pride themselves as being champions for economic equality and justice, the environmental movement is fairly elitist in its composition and its priorities. A report issued last year by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy concluded that environmental funders, in contrast to other philanthropic donors, are less likely to support disadvantaged people. In addition, the report found that organizations with annual budgets greater than $5 million comprise a mere two percent of all environmental organizations but receive more than half of all environmental grants and donations.

Read the entire column in The Sacramento Observer.

Although Atlanta is home to the largest charitable sector in the South, more support for grassroots activists in the city is needed, a report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Grantmakers for Southern Progress finds.

Based on data from 2010 to 2014, the report, As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit (36 pages, PDF), found that despite the city’s booming economy and progressive reputation, low-income communities of color are being left behind, with just over 20 percent of philanthropic funding in the city going to economically disadvantaged communities (12 percent), people of color (5.14 percent), women (4 percent), immigrants (0.3 percent), LGBTQ individuals (0.05 percent), and other underserved communities. During that five-year period, only 2 percent of foundation funding in Atlanta supported policy change and power-building strategies.

Read the entire article in Philanthropy News Digest.

For Immediate Release

New report: Philanthropy can help Atlanta become a “city too busy to hate” by investing in power-building, marginalized populations

NCRP offers five ways donors can improve outcomes and opportunities for the region’s poor, LGBTQ people, immigrants

Washington, D.C. (2/28/2018) – Metro Atlanta is home to the largest charitable sector in the South, and has grown and thrived on a reputation of prosperity and inclusiveness. But this belies a growing gentrification and criminalization problem that has marginalized the region’s underserved populations.

National and Southern foundations and wealthy donors need to support the Metro Atlanta communities’ grassroots activism to make the city’s reputation a reality.

“Many of the city’s underserved citizens have been pushed to the margins in the name of progress,” said Aaron Dorfman, chief executive of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy in a blog post. “Fortunately, there is a huge opportunity for foundations and wealthy donors to step in and support those communities.”

“As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit,” a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP; www.ncrp.org) and Grantmakers for Southern Progress (GSP; http://www.nfg.org/as_the_south_grows) explores how foundations and wealthy donors can respond to the “historic dearth” of philanthropic investment in grassroots policy change work in the region.

Few philanthropic dollars are empowering underserved Atlantans

Metro Atlanta is among the country’s fastest growing regions. Its “city too busy to hate” slogan seeks to project a welcoming, forward-looking image. Yet, its underserved residents are largely left out from these economic opportunities and marginalized populations are targeted by exclusionary policies and practices.

For example, thousands of immigrants attracted to Atlanta by its reputation have instead received apathetic responses from local civic and business leaders regarding harassment of immigrant communities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Meanwhile, both newcomers and long-time Atlantans struggle to find affordable housing.

According to Ryan Schlegel and Stephanie Peng, authors of “Bearing Fruit,” most of the philanthropy in the city goes to direct service work; just 2 percent of philanthropic investments go to organizations working to build power and change policy.

Furthermore, only two in 10 of philanthropic dollars in the city directly benefit low- and middle-income communities, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people and other underserved communities.

Just 2 percent of funding in Atlanta from the country’s grantmakers went to policy change and other power-building strategies between 2010 and 2014, and only 20 percent of funding went to work supporting the city’s underserved communities. This includes economically disadvantaged people (12 percent), African-Americans (5 percent), women (4 percent), immigrants (0.3 percent), Hispanics (0.1 percent), LGBTQ (0.05 percent) and Asian-Americans (0.04 percent). Source: NCRP analysis of Foundation Center data.

Grassroots success does not excuse lack of investment

“Bearing Fruit” features stories from some of Metro Atlanta’s grassroots organizations that have had successes despite limited resources. These include Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, Southerners On New Ground, Racial Justice Action Center and Partnership for Southern Equity.

However, this “make-do” attitude in spite of a lack of philanthropic support is not a justification for the continued lack of investment in grassroots power-building strategies, Schlegel and Peng wrote. They urge funders to increase support for efforts that organize, engage and amplify the voices of underserved communities working for equitable, just treatment and access to opportunities.

How can donors make a difference in Metro Atlanta?

Schlegel and Peng spoke with dozens of Metro Atlanta’s community leaders, nonprofits and grantmakers and developed five practical recommendations for donors who want their giving to help all marginalized Atlantans thrive:

  • Ensure that data broken down by race, gender, income, sexual identity and other demographics informs priorities and strategies.
  • Recognize the difficulty in organizing marginalized communities against the dominant political culture in Atlanta and other Southern cities.
  • Provide patient, risk-tolerant, long-term investments in grassroots organizations that enable them to build their bases and cultivate relationships.
  • Invest in organizations, not just projects, by giving flexible operating support to Southern grantees.
  • Learn local history, context, power and priorities to understand who your philanthropic partners are – and who they aren’t.

Donors can also learn from the experiences of The Kendeda Fund and The Annie E. Casey Foundation, both featured in the report.

“As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit” offers practical tips and resources that will help grantmakers and donors to have lasting impact. The report, as well as the first three in the series, “On Fertile Soil,” “Strong Roots” and “Weathering the Storm,” is available on www.ncrp.org.

About NCRP

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy amplifies the voice of nonprofits and the communities they serve in the philanthropic sector. Through research and advocacy, it works to ensure that grantmakers and donors contribute to the creation of a fair, just and equitable world.

About GSP

Grantmakers for Southern Progress is a network of southern and national funders who are committed to fostering thriving communities in the American South, characterized in part by racial and gender equity.

###

Media Contacts:

Peter Haldis: (202) 328-9351 or phaldis@ncrp.org

Atlanta is the philanthropic center of the South, and is known as a city of prosperity and inclusiveness. Unfortunately, that reputation is not the reality for all residents of the Metro Atlanta region, as many of the city’s underserved citizens have been pushed to the margins in the name of progress.

Fortunately, there is a huge opportunity for foundations and wealthy donors to step in and support those communities. Currently, most of the city’s philanthropy supports direct service work. Just 2 percent of funding goes to the power-building strategies that would enable grassroots organizations to advocate for themselves. And, only 20 percent of Atlanta’s philanthropic dollars go to low- and middle-income communities, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people and other underserved communities.

NCRP’s newest report, “As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit,” provides a blueprint for how foundations and wealthy donors can respond to the “historic dearth” of philanthropic investment for these strategies and communities in the “city too busy to hate.”

Learn about:

“As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit” is the fourth report in the five-part As the South Grows series. The final report will be released in May.

We hope “As the South Grows” inspires you to look at the South as an important opportunity for deeper engagement, investment and partnerships.

Aaron Dorfman is president and CEO of NCRP. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Editor’s note: This post was originally published on PEAK Insight Journal.

The arrival of a new year often spurs us to reflect on our past behaviors and think about what we may want to do differently in the future. If, like Ebenezer Scrooge, foundation managers were forced to go back and visit with grant partners of years past, what would they hear about their grant reporting practices?

They might hear any of these real quotes from nonprofits:

Annual reports could be sufficient in some cases where six months [reports] are currently required.

[We experienced] unwieldy and overwhelming report requirements.

The reporting requirements require a lot of our small staff of 6.

[This foundation has] reasonable expectations and reporting requirements.

The reporting requirements always make us stretch, but that becomes a management tool as a result.

We send a comprehensive stewardship report to the foundation headquarters each year, so perhaps they are satisfied with that?

Do any of these quotes resonate with feedback you’ve received from grant partners? In fact, they came from NCRP’s Philamplify initiative, which assesses the grantmaking and operations of major foundations. Over the last three years, we have surveyed more than 1,800 nonprofit leaders about grants management processes. Some of what we learned will bring cheer; some of it may spur new thinking about reporting practices.

We heard good news when it comes to right-sizing grant reports. We asked nonprofit leaders whether their funder’s outcomes measurement and reporting requirements were appropriate relative to (a) the size of the grant and (b) the size and capacity of their organization. In both cases, the answer was overwhelmingly “yes.” On average, 85 percent of respondents said “yes,” and the median “yes” response was 90 percent across nine foundations studied.

This is encouraging despite PEAK Grantmaking’s own survey results indicating that 74 percent of grants managers do not know how long it takes grantees to do reporting. Only 12 percent have even asked grantees this question.

When we asked nonprofits which characteristics most contributed to an effective partnership with the foundation, and which characteristics were most in need of improvement, evaluation and reporting requirements rarely made it into the ‘top 5’ list for either praise or critique.

Other Philamplify survey data were more discouraging when it comes to using reporting to gain feedback from grant partners:

Overall, only 3 percent of ALL survey respondents reported the foundation made changes based on feedback.

NCRP has found similar results in workshop sessions with funders. Not only are foundations missing out on opportunities to gain valuable feedback through grant reports or other methods (especially anonymous feedback), even when they do, they usually fail to report back to their grant partners about what they learned from this feedback and how the grantee feedback influenced their policies and practices.

PEAK Grantmaking’s survey findings are more promising, showing that 29 percent of its members do solicit feedback through the grant reports, at least about reporting practices. We don’t know how many of those also close the feedback loop with grant partners. Doing so helps promote transparency, mutual trust, and a stronger relationship between funder and nonprofit, a key goal for grant reporting according to PEAK Grantmaking’s members.

Strong feedback loops also promote shared learning; organizational learning is the other top goal PEAK Grantmaking’s members want grant reporting to support.

Philamplify can help, with forthcoming self-assessment tools for achieving more equitable philanthropic impact. The tools can help grants managers ask themselves and grant partners questions on these topics to inform operational changes that can lead to better relationships with nonprofits and communities.

PEAK Grantmaking challenges foundations to unite practice with purpose. If indeed one purpose is building stronger relationships with grantees, reporting can be elevated from a simple accountability mechanism to be part of an ongoing conversation that promotes trust and shared learning.

What’s your new thinking about grant reporting?

Lisa Ranghelli is the senior director of assessment and special projects at NCRP. Follow @lisa_rang and @NCRP on Twitter.

The afternoon’s keynote speaker was Aaron Dorfman, president and CEO of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a research and advocacy organization that works to ensure the country’s grant-makers and wealthy donors are responsive to the needs of those with the least wealth, opportunity and power.

Dorfman told the News he was honored to be asked to speak at the conference and that he hoped the event would touch the hearts and minds of those in attendance. He added that good intentions are necessary but not sufficient for good philanthropy and that donors, who may be blinded by their privilege, ought to listen more to the communities affected by the problems they are trying to solve. He also called for people to donate toward all kinds of nonprofit organizations, not just universities.

“There are incredible nonprofit organizations working on important issues that are starved for cash, while many university endowments are flush,” Dorfman said. “I’d also like to see universities, Yale included, take a look at their investments. Yale is invested in some hedge funds that are doing more harm than good in the world. It runs counter to the school’s values.”

Read the entire article in Yale Daily News.

The arrival of a new year often spurs us to reflect on our past behaviors and think about what we may want to do differently in the future. If, like Ebenezer Scrooge, foundation managers were forced to go back and visit with grant partners of years past, what would they hear about their grant reporting practices?

Read the entire post in PEAK Insight Journal.

The commission’s 240-page report, “Giving In America,” was the launching pad for infrastructure organizations such as the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) and Independent Sector (IS). It called for and commissioned research on giving and in most cases was working from scratch and non-digitized Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data. The commission had nowhere near the knowledge firepower of the Giving Institute, although it was backed with Rockefeller money.

Read the entire article in The NonProfit Times.