Why Are So Many Major Green Funders Still Not Sharing Their Diversity Data?

From the March For Climate Justice NYC on September 20, 2020. Ron Adar/SHUTTERSTOCK

Each year, a small nonprofit asks the nation’s 40 largest environmental groups and 40 largest funders for demographic data on their organizations. And each year, the response from most foundations is silence.

Just 11 out of 40 foundations submitted diversity data in 2020 to the annual report card issued by Green 2.0, which pushes for greater diversity in the environmental movement, even as a wave of historic protests led many philanthropic institutions to make ambitious pronouncements—and some grant pledges—on racial justice. The group, which released its latest numbers earlier this month, sees much higher participation among NGOs, with 37 out of 40 submitting data, and even some positive diversity trends. But transparency among funders was slightly worse than last year.

Green 2.0 acknowledges the events of the past year likely influenced participation, but for funders, the silence wasn’t merely a case of pandemic-era overwhelm. Over the past four years, the majority of foundations on the organization’s list have never participated in the project, which asks funders at the beginning of the year and then periodically thereafter to submit their diversity data to Candid’s Guidestar system.

“Foundations are lucky that they carry the checkbooks. There aren’t that many... organizations looking at foundations and saying, ‘We can hold you accountable,’” said Andrés Jimenez, the group’s first full-time executive director, during a press conference. “Year after year, we see a lot of the same foundations continuing not to report.”

The lack of transparency underscores the longstanding reality that most of the biggest players in the environmental field—funders and organizations alike—do not look like America. There are signs of progress, particularly at individual institutions, but at the current pace, the sector as a whole will take many years to reflect the society it seeks to serve. As a new administration takes office with the most diverse cabinet in the nation’s history, and people of color now comprising 40% of the country’s population, it is striking that philanthropy is failing even to report these numbers, let alone reach racial parity within their organizations.

“The survival of the environmental movement is going to be dependent on the community participation and leadership of communities of color and young people,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva on the call. “It can’t be cloistered and it can’t be selective anymore. This is a movement that is vital to the life of every living thing on this Earth, and climate change has made that an immediate issue.”

What do the numbers say?

Among those funders and nonprofits who do reply, the data shows small improvements over the past four years, with the average number of people of color and women rising both among full-time and senior staff since 2017. Their figures indicate people of color now account for roughly a quarter of all staff and women account for nearly two-thirds of employees across both nonprofits and foundations. (This year, the organization did not break out data for philanthropy.)

However, these gains were slight—and built on already low numbers. For instance, each organization studied had an average of 27 senior staff. The average number of people of color in those positions rose from four to six between 2017 and 2020—statistically significant, but hardly a sea change. Similarly, the average number of women in such positions increased from 13 to 15 over that span.

At the highest level, representation is static. There are an average of four people of color on each organization’s board—which typically had 17 members—and that figure has not changed since 2018. Similarly, the average number of women on boards has remained at seven during that same period.

There are exceptions. The Barr Foundation grew both racial and gender diversity at the board level, with representation reaching 43% and 57%, respectively, though the number of people of color on its staff declined somewhat. The MacArthur Foundation saw racial diversity among its staff and senior leaders rise, with people of color representing 42% and 49%, respectively. Four years ago, 83% of its senior staff were white. The Kresge Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation also reported greater ethnic diversity at most levels.

While diversity is one of the more measurable indicators of inclusion, it is not a panacea for an unrepresentative sector. “Hiring people and women and putting them on your board does not solve the problem,” Jimenez said. “If you are a person of color or a woman who comes onto a board or into an organization and sees that there is not a culture shift, [you] will leave.”

Why won’t foundations participate?

I contacted a wide range of the foundations on the Green 2.0 list, including several of the 22 who have never participated, a few of those who participated for the first time in 2020, and a few that dropped out last year after previously participating. I asked them all why they participated—or, more often, did not.

Some of the foundations who have never submitted data—Arcus Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies—did not respond to the inquiry. The few who answered the question offered a variety of reasons.

“The foundation does not participate in topic-specific survey requests,” said Ashley Chang, head of media relations at the Rockefeller Foundation, which has not once submitted data in the last four years.

A representative from the Oak Foundation said it does not participate because some of its staff are in countries where employers are prohibited from collecting such data.

Walton Family Foundation, which is listed as a Green 2.0 partner, did not address why they have never submitted their demographic data in their response. However, they have recently established a new senior-level equity and inclusion program director position. “Along with our grantees and partners, we strive to be more inclusive as a movement to achieve better outcomes for the planet,” said Moira Mcdonald, environment program director, in a statement.

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation stopped updating its data on Candid in 2015 after a fifth of their staff declined to state their racial or ethnic identities, which the organization felt made the data unreliable. “Based on the information we do monitor, I can state that the diversity of our staff and board has increased (not decreased) in recent years,” said Genny Biggs, special projects officer.

For at least one foundation, the pandemic played a part. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation did not participate in 2020 despite doing so the prior three years. The foundation’s numbers did not substantially change last year, so the team felt earlier figures were still accurate. But the organization’s nonparticipation was also related to the unique strains of 2020. “We tried to be mindful of the number of surveys we sent staff during a particularly challenging year for so many,” said Kristin Roth-Schrefer, communications director, in a statement.

On the plus side, four foundations—Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies, the Heinz Endowments and the Marisla Foundation—participated for the first time in 2020.

I asked all four why they joined the effort. One told me they participated for the first time this year because they had never before received an invitation to do so. None of the others explained why they have now submitted data.

Nevertheless, it’s refreshing to see some new entries. Marisla, notably, has only three employees. While that makes data collection easier, it also means this is one more task a lean staff must add to their to-do lists.

Mott, meanwhile, may be new, but it wants to bring its grantees into the effort, as well. “We will be encouraging the organizations we support to do the same so the field will benefit from more complete and accurate information,” said Kathryn A. Thomas, vice president of communications, in a statement.

What’s next?

Green 2.0’s report card is virtually the only one of its kind, particularly in tracking foundations. It’s a vital tool for ensuring transparency and accountability among those who hold the purse strings in the environmental movement. But it could be even better.

For instance, its list of top environmental funders could use some updates. At least two of the listed funders, the Lilly Endowment and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, do not have environmental portfolios. And given that green grantmaking has surged in recent years, it may need some additions. Green 2.0 spokesperson Daniel Herrera said that when the effort launched in 2017, it used a list of the 40 environmental grantmakers created by the Foundation Center, which “unfortunately, has not been updating that information,” he said via email. The team is exploring alternative ways to track top funders.

Yet even if a foundation doesn’t prioritize environmental funding, why would that stop it from sharing demographic data? Keep in mind, Green 2.0 is not sending a custom survey merely for its own use. The group is asking that foundations complete their Candid profile, which is where people—from prospective employees to would-be grantees—find information about those institutions. They are asking, in short, that this data be shared with the public.

Even if big players continue to ignore it, it’s a mission that is attracting some new interest. In a first for Green 2.0, two foundations, Pisces Foundation and William Penn Foundation, voluntarily asked for their data to be included in Green 2.0’s 2020 report. Let’s hope more follow their example in 2021.

It’s been said that you can’t improve what you don’t measure. By that standard, green philanthropy has a long way to go.

—

If you’ve got a minute—it’s a long list—below are all the foundations that Green 2.0 says have never submitted data to the project: