Philanthropy at Its Best

For many nonprofit leaders, relationships with foundation heads, wealthy donors and other philanthropic leaders can be difficult and complicated to manage. Below are 4 lessons that I have gleaned from my unlikely partnership over the years with Larry Kramer of the Hewlett Foundation that might be helpful for these leaders and the donors who want to assist them beyond this current moment of activism.

Honest Feedback: Respond candidly to philanthropic leadership when they ask for candid feedback about their grantmaking. Many nonprofits are reluctant to be candid because they assume that it might jeopardize future funding. If the request for feedback is not authentic, they were not the right foundations anyway. What do you have to lose?

Seizing the Moment: Be bold in your ask of leaders. Timidity is not always a virtue. We have countless historical examples of people being in the proverbial right place at the right time. I have another quick example of a philanthropist giving me much more than I expected. It was 2007. I had met the founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, Dr. T.J. Rodgers, in 1998 at a power breakfast for about 500 people at the Marriott Hotel in Santa Clara, California. It was focused on the nascent field called STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) and how to build a pipeline. T.J. loved the STEM program I had co-founded in 1998 and became an avid donor. When my new board chair arrived in 2006, he suggested that we go back to T.J. to ask for a bigger investment. We created a PowerPoint that described my vision for growing the STEM program. When we got to the part about facilities, T.J. asked me how much room we needed. We were there to ask T.J. to host our upcoming board retreat at his company headquarters, not to ask for space. I had to think quickly and told him just enough to accommodate 60 students in cubicles with networked computers. T.J. said, “I have the perfect space for you at Cypress. I will take care of that. What else is on your list?” Three months later, we had a ribbon cutting ceremony with T.J., other local dignitaries, our STEM scholars and their parents with new laptops, cubicles, storage space and more. We lived at Cypress rent-free from that month until March 2021 when the pandemic shut down the company.

Position Your Network: Leverage the relationships of those philanthropic leaders. When Larry Kramer asked me to meet with him in Dec. 2013, I agreed on the condition that he would help me. One of my main asks was for a connection with Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation. Larry was more than happy to oblige. Who gets a meeting with Darren Walker just like that? I do because Larry paved the way!

Step into Your Power: Sell your passion packaged in excellence. I take tremendous pride in A Black Education Network’s brand. We strive to always put our best foot forward and have garnered countless awards for this uncompromising commitment to high quality. When I met with Larry, I had a bound, full-color proposal to share with him. Funders appreciate well-prepared people.

At the end of the day, you are your best salesperson. When I first started in the nonprofit business in 2001, one of the first adages that I learned is that people fund people.

How you show up will determine whether or not you get funded. I have been blessed to garner dozens of funders who read like a Who’s Who in Silicon Valley and beyond. You deserve to be well-funded. Go for it!

Debra Watkins is founder emerita and director of strategic partnerships for NCRP nonprofit member A Black Education Network.

In 1976, a group of courageous nonprofit leaders decided they would attempt to hold philanthropy accountable to the needs of communities who had been marginalized in society. They made the important decision to transition from an ad hoc coalition, the Donee Group, to a permanent organization and thus birthed the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. A grant from the Rockefeller Foundation provided the initial seed money.

In this issue of Responsive Philanthropy, we look back at the most important accomplishments of NCRP’s first 45 years and look forward to how philanthropy can be better both in the near-future and another 45 years from now.

In “NCRP at 45: What it means to be philanthropy’s critical friend,” I reflect on NCRP’s first 45 years, from Bob Bothwell’s amazing leadership in the 20th century, to the incredible work done under Rick Cohen, to my own tenure that began in 2007. While NCRP has done research and advocacy on many different philanthropic issues during that time, what our greatest accomplishments have in common is that they have fallen into 2 important and related areas: accountability and social justice.

Daniel Lee, NCRP’s board vice-chair who recently stepped down after 13 outstanding years leading Levi Strauss Foundation, discusses the lessons the foundation – and its parent company – learned from working directly with grassroots leaders in “Working with grassroots leaders has changed our foundation (and business) for the better.”

Lee writes, “We believe this work reflects the new reality that business and politics are intertwined – and that companies and their foundations have a critical role to play in defending our democracy and in shaping the future.”

Lee is not the only philanthropy leader using NCRP’s anniversary to look into the future. We asked 7 visionary leaders from across the sector to answer the question “What should philanthropy look like 45 years from now?” They gave us a variety of answers, with some seeing a future where philanthropy has more power to do good, and others seeing a future where philanthropy plays a much smaller role.

In its 45 years, NCRP has benefitted from incredible leadership on its board. We asked each of our 7 previous board chairs to tell us which accomplishments they think are NCRP’s most important. Read what they have to say in “’Disruption is my jam’: 7 Former board chairs discuss NCRP’s greatest accomplishments.”

We hope you enjoy this issue of Responsive Philanthropy. Do you have a favorite NCRP accomplishment or an idea for how philanthropy should look in the future? Email us at community@ncrp.org and let us know!

As the daughter of teen parents, I know a thing or 2 about defying conventional expectations for your life. Individual willpower is critical. However, beating the odds is nearly impossible without an environment conducive to success.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been described in many ways, including “The Great Exposer,” for revealing the broken systems, misplaced priorities, and neglected communities in our society. Experts now warn against a K-shaped recovery that will exacerbate the disparities that previously existed.

I’m encouraged by the philanthropic community’s efforts to combat the impacts of the virus and support issues like racial justice and social equity. But, as a Black woman and nonprofit executive, I’ve never been more concerned that funders will inadvertently accelerate the K-shaped recovery by not evolving to meet the moment.

In a post-COVID world, funders have a unique opportunity to recreate the environments conducive to success by shifting how they do philanthropy.

Commit to multi-year funding

My organization, Crittenton Services of Greater Washington, partners with schools in Washington, D.C., and Maryland to run multi-year programs for girls. Leadership development doesn’t happen overnight. Our program must be flexible to address the varying needs of girls in different life stages and react to evolving political, school, and community environments.

The length and consistency of our presence in our girls’ lives have resulted in many achievements, including 97% graduation rates among our participants, even at schools with 50% overall graduation rates.

In order to have deep results, funders should commit to multi-year investments. Impacts of the virus will be felt for years to come. It will require significant investments to reduce the numerous disparities — racial, gender, geographic, economic and academic — that grew due to the pandemic.

Nonprofits cannot afford to start from scratch every year, nor should funders think one-and-done. We need operational support and structures to meet the increased need and real cost of our work.

It’s a strategy they should be employing as a standard, not just in crisis. Multi-year funding is crucial for the health, growth and effectiveness of nonprofits. It enables grantees to respond to crises and opportunities, maintain staff continuity and organizational leadership, overcome unforeseeable challenges and improve planning.

Focus on root causes

Initially, parents and school counselors seek out our programs to address issues like poor academic performance and difficult behaviors and personalities.

While the individual issues vary, the root of these issues is typically low self-esteem, lack of interpersonal skills, and disengaged students due to underfunded schools and challenging communities.

However, a more confident student with a clear vision for her life, with access to technology, tutors, mentors and other support, is motivated to do better in school because she sees a future she can work toward. We meet girls where they are, not where we perceive them to be.

Problems do not exist in vacuums. As society reopens, funders must be wary of driving instability by chasing the issue du jour and directing funding away from programs and activities that solve root causes.

It’s the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. Compounding issues brought on the disparities that we work to address. Instead, funders should maintain and increase support to programs and policies that specialize in preventive and holistic care. Funders must have an intersectional approach to serving the whole individual and their broader community.

Change listening and power structures

At the start of the pandemic, Crittenton shifted our work from an after-school program to a direct service organization that provides technology and, frankly, other supplies essential for survival.

At the request of our girls, we resumed our programs in a virtual model because they said it was necessary for their success and wellbeing. Soon thereafter, my program directors feared burnout due to increased workload and stress supporting their families and caring for families in crisis.

I then got my team certified in trauma-informed care and contracted therapists and built a mental health program for the team. I listened to the realities on the ground, trusted the leadership of the people affected by the problem, and responded accordingly. The same must happen in philanthropy. Funders must listen, learn, and let the people with the lived experience inform the support that they need.

All evidence shows that women, in particular women of color, are bearing the brunt of this crisis. From record job loss to increased caregiving responsibilities and diminished mental health, this pandemic has exposed the fact that although women are essential to the stability of communities, they are the most vulnerable people in our society.

In philanthropy, the reality on the ground is that nonprofits, especially community organizations run by women and people of color, are vulnerable.

Historically, we’ve been underfunded and lacked connections to donor networks and circles. Now, the K-shaped recovery coupled with record government budget shortfalls, shifting priorities, and increasing needs threatens our existence and the integral role we play in communities. True change requires that funders create better structures to invest, grow, and sustain the leaders that reflect the communities they serve.

The COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the philanthropic industry to lead recovery efforts by creating true conditions for success and equity. This means increasing multi-year funding opportunities so that grantees can plan and sustain their work in communities with the greatest need. Funders need to put on holistic and intersectional lenses.

Rather than chase short-term solutions, they need to prioritize sources, not symptoms of disparities. Lastly, funders can create conditions for success by flipping the power dynamics in philanthropy.

This means listening to program directors who intimately follow issues to inform giving needs. It also means a commitment to more equity in philanthropy and giving circles so that those closest to the source of the problem can access the resources and networks they need to lead.

Siobhan Davenport is the president & CEO of Crittenton Services of Greater Washington, a nonprofit that empowers teen girls to overcome obstacles, make positive choices, and achieve their dreams.

This week, a jury of Minnesotans found former police officer Derek Chauvin guilty in the murder of George Floyd. We are thankful that some measure of accountability has been delivered to his family, but deep in our hearts, we also know that more must be done to provide the kind of safety, security and justice he and so many others have been denied.

One guilty verdict doesn’t mean that racism embedded in our society has been purged from the criminal justice system. If it had, George Floyd — and Ma’Khia Bryant, Adam Toledo, Daunte Wright and too many others to name — would still be alive. Fear, power and prejudice continue to fuel deadly state violence.

The problem is systemic and so too must be the solution. This successful prosecution is one small step in a long journey. It should be painfully obvious that much work lies ahead of us to create a world where the lives of Black Americans are respected and our system holds everyone equal under the law, regardless of their position or power.

What can and what should philanthropy do?

4 Actions will make a difference

1. Make Space for Care: This is a time of great pain, frustration and hurt. It’s also a time to show care for your friend, your colleague, your neighbor — especially from Black and other communities of color — who have been and continue to be triggered and traumatized by systematic dehumanization and racism in all parts of life. Whether you are waking up to this reality or have long been involved in the struggle for basic civil and human rights, the toll on our collective health, energy and spirit is immense just the same.

2. Fund the Walk: It is a time to do more than empathize with Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian American and other communities that have been systematically discriminated, under-resourced and kept at the margins. Solidarity requires action, not just rhetoric. It is time to fund their service organizations, community groups, advocacy organizations and emerging leaders. It is time to put more money to the movements that are on the frontlines of the fight.

3. Commit to Dismantling White Supremacy: We know that to leave this nation better for succeeding generations, we must tackle and dismantle systemic racism and the white supremacy that is baked into the DNA of this country and its institutions of power, including philanthropy. It’s time to take a hard look at who and how we are funding and ask whether we can be doing better.

4. Redefining Safety: It is time to financially support immediate, short-term and long-term efforts that redefine policing beyond the violence-based approach of traditional law enforcement. There are groups doing exciting work on this all over the country, including those in the city of Ithaca and Tompkins County that have developed a proposal that would create a public safety department that would deploy social workers and other experts to de-escalate situations and provide help without the threat of force. It is time to stop tinkering with the world as it is, but rather invest in leaders and efforts that are re-imagining the world as it could be.

Philanthropy must move quickly so that this verdict is not just a step in the right direction, but the impetus for a strong, sustained push towards justice. No one deserves to live in fear that their every interaction with law enforcement may result in their family becoming the next one to tearfully join the nation in awaiting yet another jury verdict. Now is the time to work together to urgently share and redirect resources that can change – and save – lives.

Aaron Dorfman is president and CEO of NCRP.

Editor’s note: Check out this post on NCRP’s Medium page for a Q&A with authors Jason Baisden, Paula Swepson and Mary Snow.

Many rural areas have strong agricultural industries, deep manufacturing roots and committed local residents. Yet, people living in these communities are less likely to have access to health services and have a lower life expectancy than their urban neighbors.

One of those communities is McDowell County, N.C. in the Appalachian Mountain region of western North Carolina. This scenic location provides abundant natural assets such as Pisgah National Forest, Linville Caverns, the Catawba River, Lake James and the Blue Ridge Parkway. These attractions draw tourists, retirees, and sightseers. Like many rural areas, McDowell County has felt the effects of lost manufacturing, but has been able to maintain and attract key employers.

Mary Snow (left) and Paula Swepson

Since 2012, the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust has worked with Healthy Places NC in counties like McDowell to develop change networks and build capacity for residents to lead the work. Residents have set clear goals and strategies and are tackling health issues as well as social determinants of health — the factors outside of the medical office that impact a person’s health — head on.

They are working on critical health concerns including: obesity reduction; substance misuse; access to care; and adverse childhood experiences. Throughout the Healthy Places NC journey, the trust has learned valuable lessons that have helped reshape its grantmaking approach and can serve as a guide to the field:

1. Start by listening. Each community is unique, but your outcomes-focused process should remain the same: Community members are the experts on what they need to live happy, healthy lives. They also know the barriers that exist as well as the dynamics and historical factors behind them. And when listening it is key to seek both feedback and hard truths.

For example, one of our strong partners in McDowell, West Marion Community Forum, expressed their frustration with the trust with regards to funding. They attempted to bring several programs under one umbrella, as part of their overall strategy in the county, only to be told by us to “break it up” into several different grants.

Over time, as Healthy Places evolved, our strategy and approach shifted, and we began to question why these various projects weren’t organized under one coordinating initiative (West Marion Community Forum). Because we had built a strong relationship, we were able to have an honest conversation, which has helped us not only in McDowell County but in other communities as well.

Jason Baisden

2. Make a long-term commitment. Creating change is not a short-term project so it is critical to build real and lasting relationships with community partners. The trust has been working in McDowell County for close to 10 years to build community trust.

For the last 5 years we have used that work to intentionally amp up targeted outreach and relationship building with communities of color. This long-term commitment has supported a growing infrastructure of changemakers in McDowell and our other Healthy Places communities.

They are now being tapped by other funders on key initiatives, and we anticipate partnering with them in the coming years as a part of our growing equitable health outcomes work.

3. Put equity at the center of everything you do. Invest in community engagement strategies that are driven by those most impacted by inequities. Ensure that people of color and those with low incomes have a voice in helping their community succeed — and begin to change historic and intentionally racist systems in equitable ways.

This needs to be more than aspirational. Get out of your office and have meals with community members. Show up at their events. Find ways to create small “wins.”

Once you have found local community members and leaders, invest in them and in the creation of the organizations they run or need to create. And when you do, fund their organizations at the amount needed to do the work. Bake in general operating funds and resources that will be required as they seek additional funding from sources.

4. Champion grassroots leaders and bring unlikely partners to the table. This support ripples out into the community and sends a powerful signal to local institutions and policymakers that community partners should not be sidelined or excluded from decision-making spaces.

Support the capacity of leaders of color and lift up new voices, so everyone has a seat at the table in determining just solutions. Not only will you increase their voice in the community, but you can also raise their profile with other funders.

West Marion Community Forum was able to leverage initial Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust funding to secure a $600,000 grant from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina Foundation to work on systems change with the hospital system in McDowell.

5. Invest in impact. Enhance the effectiveness of your grantmaking by increasing power, support and capacity in communities that have been marginalized. Boost promising and proven programs that can be scaled up and projects that activate systems change.

Our work in McDowell County and with West Marion Community Forum in particular is a tribute to this approach. You can read more about it in Paula Swepson and Mary Snow’s recently published Shift Happens, but, as a teaser: By amplifying emerging leaders and organizations that represent communities of color and others that had been traditionally marginalized, we have seen incredible results.

This includes a local leader outside of the political system running to be a county commissioner, snow removal happening in Black communities first instead of last, the passing of a minimum housing standard in the city of Marion, voter education campaigns and forums, as well as the expansion of the community forum model to additional communities in the county.

Paula Swepson and Mary Snow are leading community organizers in the Southern Appalachian region. In the past 4 years, they have raised more than $3 million from public and private foundations for rural community engagement and grassroots movement building initiatives. They have hosted more than 150 community forums, bringing together citizens to discuss issues like housing, immigration, racial equity and policing. They registered new voters, organized candidate forums and engaged lawyers to discuss voting rights. In 2020, they raised $20,000 to create a community mural that memorializes the fight for civil rights in Old Fort, N.C.

Jason Baisden is the senior program officer at the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust. Learn more.

In early 2020, NCRP began exploring philanthropy’s investment in the reproductive justice movement and those providing services on the frontlines.

The reason was simple: Increasingly restrictive state legislation, a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court and an emboldened Trump administration that prioritized attacks on autonomy and access seemed to predict an end to the legal protections that are supposed to keep abortion safe, legal and accessible for all those seeking services.

A new year and a new presidential administration might signal greater cooperation with federal agencies, but it doesn’t eliminate the intense anti-abortion challenges that are still coming from state legislators or in the courts.

Reproductive rights are also inexorably intertwined with economic justice, racial justice, immigrant rights and health equity. As such, it’s a natural extension of our Movement Investment Project focus on how philanthropy can serve as a better ally to frontline social justice movement activists and organizations.

While over the coming year we plan to delve more deeply into the full array of issues encompassed in reproductive justice, the use of the pandemic as a pretense for anti-abortion policies, the funding patterns for this aspect of the movement and the increased pressure on state and local abortion funds made us decide to start our work here.

The reality of the reproductive access funding space

It’s hard to imagine a just and equitable world that doesn’t allow for people to have full control over decisions related to their body. While the sector is clearly committed to abortion advocacy at both state and national levels, there is little data showing foundation funding for the essential work held by abortion funds.

Why is that important? Unlike some other movements, a significant majority of the financial support for abortion access and services comes not through institutional foundations, but through smaller abortion funds that often struggle to keep up with the financial needs of patients.

In fact, less than 3% of the $1.7 billion of philanthropic dollars for reproductive rights issues between 2015 and 2019 was specifically designated to these abortion funds.  Overall, only 21% was explicitly designated for abortion rights and services.^[1]

We reached out to abortion funds around the country to better understand how they are providing the practical support callers needed and how a shift in funding would benefit their sustainability and capacity. (We summarized the data and these conversations, with a focus on 5 abortion funds in Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, Midwest and Northwest, in this fact sheet.)

What we heard won’t come to a surprise to many who have sought to access the reproductive rights that the Supreme Court first upheld 48 years ago in Roe v. Wade.

The need to make access real and affordable

There is no need to imagine a world without Roe v. Wade. It has become the de facto reality across the country.

It has come into existence by those who have seized on the restrictions imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19 to further limit access abortion-related services and procedures. Consider that across the nation:

12 states have attempted to shut down abortion clinics by labeling them as “nonessential businesses,” with Texas, Ohio, Arkansas and Iowa restricting or banning abortion altogether during the pandemic.
19 states have banned telemedicine, limiting both the overall number of clinics and states with clinics accessible to out-of-state patients.
33 states require counseling before an abortion procedure, and 25 of these states have waiting periods of at least 24-hours, forcing potential patients to make multiple trips or arrange travel for multiple days at a time.

The restrictions have also limited the work of volunteers and increased overall costs, straining regional networks of volunteers and providers that patients rely on for logistical, economic and social support.

“In the past we have relied on a network of volunteers who could house callers in their home while they were traveling for abortion care as well as provide rides to folks who needed to get to and from their appointments,” says Iris Alatorre of the Northwest Abortion Access Fund. “After COVID-19, relying on our volunteer network for these necessary services was no longer a safe option.”

What should philanthropy do?

Art created by Forward Together staff, Diana Lugo-Martinez, Kara Carmosino and Micah Bazant, to mark the 43rd anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. Used under Creative Commons license.

Money certainly helps, as increased investment in abortion funds would help frontline groups and networks address the continuing uncertainty as the pandemic and anti-abortion legislation leaves abortion advocates under protected and overwhelmed.

It would also allow funds to further accommodate patients through increased partnerships with other organizations to better coordinate both logistical needs like housing and travel as well as mental health needs and services across states to better support those who live in restrictive regions.

The math is not complicated. We know that if abortion funds saw an increase equal to even 1% of all reproductive rights funding, this would mean an additional $9 million in foundation support for the frontlines. However, maximizing the impact of additional dollars would also require a shift in funding practices in the following ways:

Wielding power: Philanthropy must leverage its reputation, financial assets and capacity to destigmatize abortion, empower abortion funds and secure access for those seeking services.  

Unrestricted and multi-year grants: Abortion funds rely on 5 primary funders that make up 74% of their philanthropic support. If they were to lose their top institutional funder, it would compromise half of their philanthropic support, a risk that multi-year, unrestricted grants have the potential to reduce. 

Funding at the state and local level:  At the moment, the top 20 recipients of reproductive rights funding are all national organizations, while a majority of abortion services and practical support are happening at the state and local level. 

Transparency from the sector: Philanthropic transparency is vital in not only building trust with a movement that is rightfully cautious, but to disrupt the harmful practice of anonymously funding such a visible issue.  

Divestment from fad-funding: Short-lived funding inspired by a historic moment or the fear of abortion restrictions is a harmful practice and doesn’t allow abortion funds to build their capacity.  

In many ways, the situation at hand is a vivid reminder that grantmaking reflects an erroneous assumption of reproductive rights as an exclusively white, cis-woman issue centered on the national legal debate is not a framework sufficient to meet the current challenge, much less those that lie ahead.

To equitably serve communities, philanthropy must move beyond the mainstream feminist funding approach that, among other things, privileges legal advocacy over direct support on the ground, negates the links between economic justice and reproductive rights, and often renders invisible the existence of trans and non-binary people as patients needing abortion services and care.

Only a truly inclusive and intersectional reproductive justice funding framework allow us to move us closer to the social change we all wish to see.

Brandi Collins-Calhoun is NCRP’s senior movement engagement associate and leads the organization’s Reproductive Access and Gendered Violence portfolio of work.

Stephanie Peng is NCRP’s senior associate for movement research and was the lead researcher on the organization’s most recent factsheet, The Cost of Covid: How the Pandemic Shifted Abortion and the Funds that Guard Patient Access, Rights and Justice.

¹Editor’s Note: Analysis of original figures initially published in January of 2021 concluded a total of 912 million in funding for reproductive rights issues, with 20% going to abortion services and 2% going to abortion funds specifically. However, new data added into the Candid database in late 2021 updated those figures.

I invite donors to act as boldly as the Black and brown women whose bodies are the front lines of change.

In Georgia, long before the 2020 elections were part of the national news cycle, Nse Ufot, Stacey Abrams, LaTosha Brown, Phyllis Hill and many other Black women saw the threat that was coming for their families.

They activated their vast networks, at first with very few resources to support the work, and they did the slow, tedious work of building a base of everyday people.

Their successful efforts will reverberate to benefit millions of families. In Arizona and Nevada, Latinas including Alejandra Gomez, Alicia Contreras and Denise Lopez changed the course of history, generating record election turnout numbers.

Yet still too few foundation dollars are being devoted to centering the leadership of Black and brown women.

My colleague Aaron Dorfman, president and CEO of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, and I met in 2003 when we were both organizers in Florida.

In an early conversation about my upcoming book Thriving in the Fight: A Survival Manual for Latinas on the Front Lines of Change, he encouraged me to include a list of tips for donors who want to support the leadership of Latino women. Most of these tips also apply to investing in leaders of color more broadly.

Here are 7 tips to help you be wildly successful at supporting the leadership of Latinas.

1. Trust Black and brown women. Nikole Hannah-Jones reminded us in The New York Times’ 1619 Project that “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.” Black women have been calling our country to live into its fullest self since before we were a country. When in doubt, lean on the wisdom of women who self-identify as Afro-Latina, Black, Indigenous, Hispanic – all women of color who are closest to the community. These are the people who will continue the fight when no one is looking.

2. Don’t wait for us to call you. We’re usually overworked and very busy. Reach out to us by phone or text and be willing to talk to us while we’re on the move (or with kid noise in the background). I believe that Black and brown women bear outsized responsibility both at work and at home. We often don’t have the commensurate resources, recognition or room for reflection to get the job done. Yet, we usually get the job done anyway. Sometimes this happens at the cost of our health, psyche, careers and families. That is why it’s critical to deeply invest in our leadership.

3. Invite us many times. If you reach out to us and you don’t hear back, it’s because we’re usually overworked and very busy. If you invite us to present at a conference and we say no, persist. I know many Latinas who have declined invitations to speak or be honored for their work because of the lessons we’ve been taught about humility and leading from behind without expecting any recognition or reward. It’s also a huge sacrifice every time we leave our chosen families and families of origin to attend ‘extra’ events even if they’re virtual.

4. When we do call you, we’ve needed your help for a long time. Listen intently to what we need, and do your best to help us out. Sometimes when you are used to doing your work with limited financial resources, it becomes hard to imagine what it would be like to have lots more money. I have watched white women leaders advocate for 3 times the resources as their Latina sisters for the exact same work.

5. Make it easy for us to access funds. Remember, many of us have complicated relationships with money. When you come from poverty, asking for money is terribly As an example, instead of asking a close family member for a loan to support my exorbitant Harvard tuition, my parents chose to rent out their house and go live with family, work overtime, deliver Domino’s pizza and damaged their credit. Do your best as a donor to make it simple for us to access resources.

6. Give us other ways to communicate with you.If you find that we are delaying at the point of the process where we need to submit something to you in writing, it’s likely we worry that our writing isn’t good enough. So instead of sending it over, many of us will wring our hands and avoid. To combat this, consider accepting information in many modalities: PowerPoints, YouTube videos, listening into a meeting via phone, events, phone conversations, newspaper articles, etc. Or, you could even offer to pay for a writing consultant or firm. Remember, worship of the written word is one of the symptoms of white supremacy, so do your best to break down that norm in your role as a donor.

7. Ask us how we are investing in our own development and consider paying for it in some way. Always take a moment to ask Latinas and women of color more broadly how they’re investing in their own development. So often, women stay so busy doing the work that we put our own needs last. Ask what they’d love to learn but haven’t had time for. Seek additional ways to support the leadership of women. A prestigious K. Kellogg Foundation fellowship includes funds for self-care that can be used for things like acupuncture and massage. Before COVID-19 hit, the Ford Foundation began investing in convenings that can be built around radical self-care. These are the kinds of supports that can rejuvenate Latinas and all women of color. Ask about the organization’s leave and parental benefits policies, and ask how they’re preparing themselves and their employees for retirement. There are many ways to support the development of Latinas. Sometimes we’re too busy to imagine what could be.

This country is in a moment that requires accountability. I am grateful for groups like NCRP who are calling for greater accountability for donors who are seeking to do the most good. By following these 7 steps, funding partners can help create environments in which women of color thrive. When Black and brown women thrive, we all thrive.

Denise Collazo is a social justice leader, mentor to fellow women of color and family work integration innovator. She is senior advisor for external affairs and director of institutional advancement at Faith in Action, the nation’s largest faith-based community organizing network. Pre-order copies of her book before February 23, 2021 here. Net proceeds from the sale of the book will go to a fund for Latina community organizers that is administered by Latina community organizers.

This year has been an exhausting year of multiple intersectional crises. We’ve seen everything from earthquakes in Puerto Rico to ravenous wildfires on the West Coast, all amidst a global pandemic, a never-ending string of law enforcement abuse cases and an election cycle that doesn’t want to end.

Economically, the adjustments have been just as big. While some businesses and families have been able to whether the economic downturn and work from home, many others have had to file for unemployment or, even worse, risk catching the disease because of their status as essential workers.

While foundations have been quick to respond to the changing conditions, many seem to still be hoping that the current immediate crisis come to an end. Which begs the question: How will philanthropy adjust to the current moment?

In his recent column in Inside Philanthropy, NCRP’s Research Director Ryan Schlegel urges “sector leaders to begin using their imaginations to envision new ways of advancing the public good with public/private wealth.”

“Philanthropy leaders should be radically reimagining their role in a just society — leaning into the transformation COVID has wrought on our economy and society” because “many are dwelling the minutiae of the old way of doing philanthropy.”

Schlegel writes that foundation can fund the immediate response, the economic recovery and their missions, and still have plenty left over if they can center their work on the realities that affected communities face and commit to doing things like spending more than just the traditional minimum of 5% of their institution’s assets.

Schlegel’s popular piece came on the heels of several NCRP briefs this year that have looked at the amount of funding that community foundations have explicitly designated for Black communities, as well as immigrants and refugee communities.

As NCRP’s Eleni Refu and Lisa Ranghelli wrote in Blue Avocado, those reports “found that the share of local philanthropic dollars specifically designated for these respective communities was a mere penny per dollar for service organizations and less than half that for movement groups involved in advocacy and organizing, despite their obvious disproportionate vulnerability.”

Unfortunately, for many, these data points are nothing new — philanthropy has a long history of massive under-investment in communities of color and Black communities specifically.

Institutional philanthropy is itself a product of unjust systems that have recently begun to come apart at the seams. Its combined $1 trillion in assets largely reflects generations of ill-gotten wealth stemming from slavery, corruption, and worker and environmental exploitation.

Between 2010 and 2019, according to FoundationMark, foundation assets grew 50%, while the Federal Reserve reported the median U.S. household’s financial assets (excluding real estate, business equity, etc.) increased just 3%, and the median Black household’s financial assets decreased 23%.

While the cash, stocks and bonds sitting in philanthropic bank accounts have piled up, foundations have maintained their decades-long commitment to steering grantmaking away from work that is targeted in the communities in the best position to put it to good use.

Between 2010 and 2017 (the most recent year of data available for the Foundation 1000, a representative sample of the largest 1,000 foundations in the U.S. compiled by Candid), foundations gave just 9% of their total grant dollars and less than 1% of their total assets to work explicitly to benefit Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities.

They also gave 1.4% of their total grant dollars and about 0.1% of their assets for work intended to benefit immigrants and refugees.

What does seem new is the very real opportunity to repair the damage of the past in systematic way. Will their wallets follow their words? Schlegel believes that because “the old arguments about the value of a dollar today versus two next year ring hollow,” philanthropy must adapt in order to survive.

If at some point the foundation industrial complex is faced with the level of public scrutiny and thirst for accountability that has been directed at institution after institution in American life over the last 2 decades, I am not optimistic it would survive intact.

The point is: Many institutions that once sat on rock-solid foundations of public trust have lately found themselves in quicksand once the curtain is pulled back by savvy political actors. Foundation CEOs and staffs should not delude themselves into thinking it cannot happen to them.

For many online, Schlegel’s words rang true, as he verbalized what many have been feeling and saying in smaller circles.

Benjamin Soskis, research associate in the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute tweeted: “One more observation sparked by Ryan’s important post. I’m completing a research brief on charitable & philanthropic giving during the Great Depression & one thing that I was esp. Struck in reviewing the history is how *little” philanthropy was changed by the crisis.”

One more observation sparked by @r_j_schlegel's important post. I'm completing a research brief on charitable & philanthropic giving during the Great Depression & one thing that I was esp. struck by in reviewing the history is how *little* philanthropy was changed by the crisis. https://t.co/Oh3U5RUUmo

— Benjamin Soskis (@BenSoskis) October 22, 2020

Everyone knows that our nation – and the idea that a fair, just and democratic society in which the common good is recognized as a high priority – is at a crossroads. We know that a place where everyone systematically receives equal justice, full inclusion and fair treatment can only happen if leaders across all sectors commit to making it happen.

Whether it’s new or old, that is a normal that we should all be equitably striving for, regardless of a pandemic.

Cleyris Perez-Santos is NCRP’s events intern.

Leadership matters, especially in challenging times.

I am feeling deep gratitude for the nonprofits (501c3 and 501c4) that played such an incredibly important role this year protecting democracy. Their work was absolutely pivotal.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been elected president and vice president of the U.S. Control of the Senate won’t be decided until the January runoff elections in Georgia. While the full implications of the election remain uncertain, one thing is crystal clear: Philanthropic funding for movements will be needed more than ever in 2021. Sustained grassroots organizing is essential if we hope to make progress on the pressing issues facing our nation and the world.

In this issue of Responsive Philanthropy, we explore courageous leadership and damaging failures of leadership at some of the nation’s largest philanthropies.

Performative philanthropy and the cost of silence

Ray Holgado, a former Chan Zuckerberg Initiative employee who recently filed a discrimination claim against the philanthropy with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, offers a blistering critique of the philanthropy’s alleged racial discrimination toward Black staff and suggestions for how the field can move forward.

Filling in NoVo’s void

Brandi Collins-Calhoun, NCRP’s senior movement engagement associate, shares a deeply personal account of how NoVo Foundation’s decision earlier this year to eliminate its gendered violence program is impacting Black women in philanthropy and social justice movements. She also challenges other donors to step up and urges NoVo to execute a responsible exit – something the foundation has committed to in general terms without offering any specifics thus far.

Donors and foundations are increasingly supporting movements

The above examples notwithstanding, it has not been all bad news for philanthropic leadership in 2020. In fact, many high-net-worth donors and foundations have been leading in phenomenal ways. I lay out some shining examples of philanthropy supporting movement work.

When the coronavirus first came to my consciousness, I went shopping. We made a plan: Don’t dip into our pantry until we need to.

And when we had to, we would replace it immediately with another 2 weeks stock. We’d live by the 2 by 2 rule of Noah and his ark.

We decided we would continue to live this French marketing way until we couldn’t anymore: The farmer’s market, the orchards in season, the small bodegas and Costco for staples constituted our little French circle.

We haven’t touched the pantry (yet) and, likewise, it appears the crisis of COVID-19 will last much longer than we had imagined.

Our endowment remains untouchable because it is kind of unthinkable to touch it. The best reason not to spend an endowment is that things might get worse – and then we wouldn’t even have our back up.

On the other hand, maybe spending an endowment could make things better. It might even restore people’s hope in foundations. Or maybe just restore their hope. Now that uprising has joined pandemic, many of us have misplaced our hope.

Foundations also have a pantry kind of plan. Many spend earnings and not capital. Certainly, many nonprofits and religious institutions have a plan: Never dip into your endowments, no matter what.

Before crises, one can shop the French way. One can pick and choose the boutique programs, the fresh idea, the short-lived idea.

During a crisis, we are forced to think long. When will we end police abuse of their power or the way people of color suffer more no matter what happens? Repair? Reparation? Unfund the abuse of power and release power to people? What good ideas for a pantry.

Philanthropy must change its practices and increase funding

We have to do both the work of mercy and justice at the same time. When 20 million jobs disappear in one month, people get legitimately nervous.

It could be a very good time to invest in a very good future, one where instead of using nature up, we sustain her long.

The Skoll Foundation recently doubled the money it is going to give away.

New money is a great approach to avoid spending investments, but it is unlikely to resolve the preexisting conditions that make all of us comorbid with this virus.

We need to change our habits with our pantries, not just spend more money in the old ways we spent it.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The virus is like pouring gasoline on an already existing fire. We shouldn’t be surprised that we are all burning.”

The virus turns a spotlight on multiple and multiplying perennial catastrophes. They are the slow drip of cruelty that keeps foundations in business.

A small pantry is likely a good one; a huge pantry is not. Why? It stagnates money and human energy – and keeps the good times of justice and fairness far away.

Why not bring the good times near? Ocasio-Cortez’s metaphor is a fire burning hard; mine is a pantry, getting empty and emptier because it can’t stand being rich while others aren’t.

I wonder what would happen if Pope Frances decided to spend down some of the Roman Catholic holdings and just send everyone a check. Regularly.

Until a new world appeared on the horizon, where people felt good about God again. He can keep 2 weeks worth, but keeping more looks like you are counting on the pandemic, the fires, to keep going.

What happens when an endowment is spent

I saw a religious institution spend from its endowment once, and it proved very useful, both to the parent institution and the community. The Coral Gables Congregational Church in Florida had an endowment of $13 million when I signed the paperwork to become their next pastor. In the time I signed, and then arrived, the endowment doubled because its source, UPS, went public.

That amount of endowment is just too much for a congregation. It diminishes stewardship, causes the pastor to work without the congregation’s approval — because she really works for the endowment and doesn’t need the congregation — and makes the congregation look rich when its mission consistency and mission centrality is universal, not divisive.

If a church doesn’t think all people are important, who does? If a church doesn’t understand a virus, and its way of scaring each other of each other, then who does?

The church made a plan to leverage its endowment. The first year it matched the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Knight Foundation with a million-dollar challenge.

Each foundation put in another $1 million and that $3 million launched Accion International’s first U.S. location in Miami. Last year Accion in Miami issued $13 million in loans, 96% of which were repaid. Leverage, leveraged.

The second year the congregation gave $100,000 each in “MacArthur grants” to high achieving nonprofit leaders in the city. Those entrepreneurs went on to add major value to each of their institutions.

The third year, as arts programs were cut in public school’s city wide, the church funded arts and music in those schools within its nearby zip codes. The artists who performed in the church’s jazz ministry taught the kids in school.

Spending the endowment bought ministry and mission. The church increased in members and credibility and the self-governance of an important institution was not threatened.

The best thing to do with power and money are to give them away. Sustaining gifts or guaranteeing incomes is not something you do transactionally. Because doing so is genuinely good, it ends up giving back.

Foundations are often like my pantry strategy. We think short term. We don’t see how long term the damage is to our communities and how long it will take to put the fires out.

We pick and choose from boutique programs instead of building capacity locally for our people so we can get out of the way. We shop the French way, which is daily, instead of the smart way, which is longer term.

What could foundations do now that would make them look good and actually use philanthropic money for the purposes for which we provided tax relief?

Start a national service program, where people unlearn racism and sexism early enough to be different the rest of their lives. Innovate strategies and its development for such a program.
Get colleges and universities and museums to model the program’s eventual development by the feds. Start arts and repair projects like the government did under President Franklin Roosevelt. We are desperate for a Works Progress Administration.
Establish reparations. Fully acknowledge the damage racism has done, over generations. Give the pantry away because too many people never had one in the first place.
Put women in charge of giving away the money.
Don’t send anyone to college until they are 25 and know how to drink alcohol responsibly.

Do something so long term that it outlasts the current crisis. Match the government in innovative ways to run these programs. Guarantee incomes quickly and get money circulating.

Then when we have a robust and strong long-term economy again, start rebuilding your endowment so you have enough to give away in the next crisis.

Donna Schaper is senior minister at Judson Memorial Church in New York City.

4 Lessons from A Black Education Network’s partnership with Hewlett Foundation’s Larry Kramer