There was also a striking number of separate grantees funded, with only 30 groups receiving grants from more than one funder, and only six groups receiving grants from more than two funders. Popular grantees include the ACLU and ACLU chapters, backed by four funders; and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Black Futures Lab, Center for Popular Democracy, East Bay Permanent Real East Cooperative, and the NAACP and chapters, all of which received support from three funders.
The fact that only 7.4% of grantees had an explicit or dedicated focus on criminal justice work might also come as a surprise, considering policing reform was a major thrust of the 2020 protest movement. It’s also true that you wouldn’t really describe the majority of these grantees as working toward any particular targeted policy goal. In that sense, this grantmaking is far more reminiscent of the MacKenzie Scott school of funding, showering a broad mix of organizations with the support they’ve long been lacking. On one hand, that could indicate a lack of coherent strategy in this wave of funding. Critically, however, it’s also likely a reflection of a less prescriptive approach to funding, and the non-siloed, intersectional nature of the work many of these organizations are doing, both of which movement leaders praise.
“One of the other things we’ve done during this time period is we’ve moved away from issue portfolios, which was our traditional way of giving, where you might have a criminal justice column here and a juvenile justice column there and an education equity column, and instead are looking at how we help marginalized communities build power across issues,” said OSF’s Perriello. “Racial justice for us is not a pillar of work. It is something that informs all of the work we do around structural change, policy change and cultural change.”
Who holds decision-making power?
Our analysis also looked at the degree to which grantmaking practices are not only funding, but actually shifting power to organizations led by people of color. There are many ways that funders can make such shifts, including reducing elaborate application and reporting requirements, which are still the norm, but which create a significant power imbalance between funders and grantees.
“When you are a newer organization, Black-led, Black-founded, working on an application that is different from what is in the space, that is an innovative new approach, I think it’s very hard to get the eyes, the ears and the support that you need to be successful,” said LaToya Williams-Belfort, executive director of the Fifteen Percent Pledge. “There needs to be a rethinking of how philanthropy interacts with racial justice and economic justice to create space for new innovations and new ways of working as we try to solve really complex problems in the world.”
Philanthropy as a whole tends to be risk-averse, and for a variety of unfounded reasons, funders tend to view nonprofits led by people of color as risky investments. Black-led organizations need funders to trust them in their approaches. Rather than having decisions made by wealthy white donors or program staff, organizers and experts are increasingly recommending centering communities as decision-makers, so-called participatory grantmaking.
“Philanthropy continues to operate — not all, but most — from a traditional model where they decide what is best for communities… and then they make groups scramble to fit inside of that box they created,” Long said. “We really need solutions that are based on their own [community] development, not for foundations or philanthropy to come in and tell that community what it needs.”
We asked foundations who holds decision-making power in their racial justice grantmaking, and what steps they were taking in regard to shifting power. Here, responses were mixed. For some of the funders we looked at, including Ford, the California Endowment, Lumina and OSF, grantmaking decisions came from existing staff members and executives, without any notable shifting of decision-making power.
Some funders pointed only to internal efforts to be more responsive. The Packard Foundation’s grants were made through its existing grantmaking team, but in January of this year, the foundation appointed Dr. Katherine Wheatle as the inaugural director of justice and equity grantmaking.
Hewlett’s work was advised by a new Culture, Race and Equity team, and plans to provide staff members with access to coaching to help them integrate DEI and justice more fully into their work. According to a representative for Hewlett, along with coaching, Hewlett’s strategy will also include identifying specific actions staff members will take to better address DEI and justice as part of their work. On the external side, Hewlett will also rely on an advisory council made up of racial justice experts to support it’s learning and provide assistance with grantmaking decisions.
According to a representative from CZI, the initiative has built a DEI team and hired a vice president of diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as a team to strengthen its grantmaking through a racial equity lens. While CZI did not say these moves are in response to past controversy, the funder has drawn criticism regarding its treatment of Black workers. In 2020, Ray Holgado, a now-former employee of CZI, filed a racial discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing against CZI on behalf of himself and other Black employees at the initiative. Among the many grievances he named in the complaint, Holgado was warned to “refrain from advocating for grantmaking that addressed racial disparities present in the criminal justice system.”
For its part, Surdna is taking some steps to shift its grantmaking decisions to both grantees and community members. It has a participatory grantmaking initiative and gives to some external funds with participatory elements. Surdna is also prioritizing listening to grantees’ needs through various town halls and learning cohorts, both of which help shape Surdna’s grantmaking.
CZI has launched a participatory community grantmaking review pilot as part of a separate initiative in which community members are active participants in the grantee funding decision-making process. The New Commonwealth Fund will also be introducing a selection panel of experts, practitioners and individuals invested in its focus areas in its future decision-making process.
Two of the funders really stood out in this regard, taking on a more community-based approach in carrying out their pledges right from the start. The California Black Freedom Fund, a funding collaborative, made its grantmaking decisions with the guidance of an advisory committee of leaders who represent a range of community interests, including organizing and advocacy. Similarly, Democracy Frontline Fund’s grantmaking was guided by an “all-women-of-color brain trust” of activists and advisors.
For some funders, these pledges have also brought a change in investment approaches. Lumina, for example, said it’s now examining who it’s making investments with and the diversity of its investment advisors. It is also taking into consideration the organizational cultures of those it invests with, how they serve communities of color, and whether or not they have public commitments to advancing racial equity and justice.
–
There are several key takeaways from the findings of this project, and in many ways, the pledges we scrutinized represent progress in philanthropy’s evolving commitment to racial justice. At the same time, it would be a mistake to look at these millions going out the door and check any sort of box, patting the sector on the back for a job well done. In an accompanying post, we sum up how funders are doing — and what the sector still needs from them.
This post was last updated with additional information on Sep. 2, 2022.