White Moderate Foundations – Listen & Create Value (Part Four)

In case you missed the third part of the series last week, White Moderate Foundations: Branded Silence, click here!

 Over the past three weeks, I’ve covered white standards and how they are antiquated and restrictive, the disconnect from reality experienced when working with foundation staff or board members, and the brand of silence that perpetuates systemic issues. Now that the problem is laid out and made abundantly clear, I think it is important to provide some immediate solutions that are the most tangible to accomplish.

In the rest of this article, I will cover signs 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 from the original article. Let’s dive in:

9. You believe it is more important to hoard resources for the future than to spend out more now to effectively address current injustice.

I have discussed this in my previous articles, but foundations have a 5% pay back rule that they must legally follow per IRS guidelines. 5% may not sound like much, but when your foundation has millions in assets, it adds up. Unfortunately, foundations tend to see the 5% requirement as the ceiling instead of the floor for giving back. There are a few foundations that literally have statements on their website on how they proudly give 5.5% back to the community as if that is something to be proud of when they’ve been around for 100+ years.

I received this response in the fall last year: “Unfortunately, we are not able to fund your request. We wish we could fund every meaningful appeal, but as we receive far more requests than we have funds, we are unable to support every project. Our Board commends you and your organization for your generosity of spirit and dedication of time and effort to the community.” Foundations could easily support every project, or at least support more projects every year overall, if they spent more and more equitably. Hoarding resources does not create value. I strongly encourage foundations to risk more in their giving strategies and be willing to allocate funds specifically for new organizations.

12. You support spending significant time and money to end solutions that marginalized communities have already told you about multiple times.

Since COVID, many foundations have restructured their strategic plans or funding priorities to directly combat systemic racism. I think this is a step in the right direction, but I want to see foundations commit to this long-term. When COVID is cured and Black History Month 2021 is over, the push for racial equity, racial justice, social justice, and everything in between should not stop.

Foundations need to continue to push, removing funding restrictions when possible (i.e., more general operations support) and influencing state-wide policies so that the marginalized communities severely affected by COVID can not only bounce back but return even stronger than they were before. I’ve heard numerous times that white Americans need to understand that their interests coincide with black people’s interests and I couldn’t agree more. In order for black-led nonprofits to thrive, white foundations need to listen to those they serve. Don’t tell them what you fund and expect them to change accordingly without resources. When black individuals are treated with as much interest as specific parts of black culture, we all thrive.

13. You allow racist, sexist, white supremacist, and other hateful views to have airtime for the sake of “diversity of thoughts/perspectives” or “equal time.”

Since the protests last summer after the murder of George Floyd, too many foundations and other institutions have been silent in the wrong moments. A foundation’s purpose is to support specific communities and help end or at least lessen systemic issues impacting them. I have mentioned it in almost every previous article already, but foundations do not have the same political pressures as most businesses. They can and do operate completely on their own to accomplish their strategic goals.

What this means is that foundations have the ability to get involved and listen to the communities they serve to better understand them. Foundations have the privilege to see what they are struggling with on a day-to-day basis. It should not take a long time to realize that things like racism, sexism, and white supremacy do not have a positive impact on those you intend to serve. Publicly speak up against systemic issues, not just in a fancy statement on your website or through hosting a series of racial equity webinars during Black History Month (the shortest month in the year). Make it very clear and very well known that you will not entertain hateful views. To do this effectively, you need to be in the communities you serve, interacting with them directly.

15. You dismiss people’s actions to advance social justice if they are not done through the “right” and “proper” channels.

Many foundations have a formal grant process that may include a requirement-heavy letter of intent, a rushed interview stage or stages, and a dreaded application that usually includes tedious drop-down menus that don’t appear in the printer-friendly or PDF version.

Fortunately, COVID has forced foundations and other funders to simplify their grantmaking process or expand the submission options for grantees. One foundation here in Pittsburgh created a full application for COVID relief that took about 15 minutes to complete. Another foundation now allows video submissions instead of submitting letters of intent. These are both easy ways for foundations to shift from the traditional grantmaking process to a more human-centered approach that truly creates value within the communities served. This is a step in the right direction, but it is important to note that there are many other steps and a long way to go until this becomes the norm in philanthropy.

17. You prioritize costs over equity, for example going with the cheapest vendors/contractors than intentionally hiring women- and BIPOC-owned businesses.

For this sign, I want to focus on what happens when you prioritize cost over equity, i.e., sacrificing humanity for a better deal. We see it all the time in the nonprofit world – the same nonprofits getting consistently funded while smaller, new groups are told they need more experience, more resources, more staff. They need more. I understand that foundations want to use their money and get the best possible return; however, I think foundations tend to look at financial return instead of social return.

When focused on financial return instead of social return, a lot of pressure gets placed upon the intermediary organizations to uphold the values of the communities they serve. In Pittsburgh, these intermediaries include organizations such as Neighborhood Allies, New Sun Rising, and Bridgeway Capital. While these organizations are great for their communities and provide much needed support, they simply do not have enough capacity or the right programs to effectively serve those left behind by foundations.

As a result, the small nonprofits I work with and even the larger well-established nonprofits end up having to compete for the same resources to the point that everyone gets an equal lesser amount instead of an equitable amount that allows everyone to thrive in the nonprofit ecosystem.

Only recently has there been a push for social return instead of financial return. A few of the larger foundations have invested in some of the intermediaries I listed above during COVID-19, but it should not have taken a global pandemic to initiate the reallocation of funding towards organizations that serve historically black, low-income, and underserved communities.

18. You play “Devil’s Advocate” when activists and organizers bring up solutions that may lead to radical changes.

Established grantees are not the only organizations with great ideas. Many small, black-led grassroots organizations have the vision, volunteers, and the experience to lead but are met with a response like this: “A third area of focus…is comprised of Foundation-initiated investments in projects undertaken by established grantee partners; this area of work is by invitation only from our board leadership.” Without the funding to become established, grassroots ideas will never be funded. When black-led organizations have radical ideas for change, listen to them.

Many foundations will respond with the typical “that’s a nice idea, but…” and then go into detail as to why they can’t fund the idea because it’s never been done before or it seems too large of a goal. Once again, I understand the hesitation, but I think instead of a “no”, the response should be a “not yet”. Foundations should work with current and potential grantees to help position them for success if they match their funding priorities but lack the capacity or direction.

19. You say racialized and marginalized people complain too much and that they do not offer enough solutions.

I’ve noticed a shift this year that looks like a move in the right direction as foundations host more webinars and conversations around what their future looks like. The webinars are great, but I tend to see the same people at them, and they are not necessarily the people who need the information. I appreciate the effort to be more transparent with program announcements and deadlines, but there needs to be a stronger push to be part of the communities they serve. There needs to be a stronger push to go out of their way to address questions from those unable to attend the Zoom meetings. Hosting the meetings is not enough; the meetings also need to be accessible.

20. You act on the belief that the potentially equitable ends justify the inequitable means you may use to get there, for example not paying interns or not providing disabled people fair wages.

Foundations are slowly making changes towards more equitable giving; however, as I’ve said previously, there is still a lot of work to do. Foundations need to provide additional funding for capacity building and operating support for small organizations. This could easily be $1,000 as opposed $50,000 for a mid-sized counterpart. With proper guidance provided by the foundations, that $1,000 would go a longer way to support the organization than $50,000 might have for a larger poorly led organization.

21. You believe in radical changes in theory, but you think people should be pragmatic and incremental in their approach.

I covered this earlier, but once again, radical changes need more support. The only reason they are considered radical is because they’re being compared against the white standards of the past. Comparing radical ideas against white standards is detrimental to society and creates a mentality that decides that change is impossible before the changes are even considered. Instead, foundations need to consider radical ideas and work with current or potential grantees to develop what the change could look like long-term and then help make it happen. Leading with a human approach and prioritizing compassion will make radical changes a reality.

This concludes my fourth article, Listen & Create Value, the final part of the White Moderate Foundations series.

In case you’ve made it this far and have no idea what I’m talking about, over the next few weeks, I’ll be going through the 21 signs you or your organization may be the white moderate Dr. King warned about observed here in Pittsburgh and offering solutions to the grantmaking world. Please feel free to comment or message me with any questions, I would love to discuss any of this further.