White Moderate Foundations – White Standards (Part One)
In case you missed the introduction to the series last week, click here!
As I approach the end of my third year writing grants in Pittsburgh, I’ve seen all kinds of interactions and responses from foundations and other funding sources. Many of those responses look something like this: “While we so appreciate the mission of the organization and the important work that they do, your request is not a fit for the foundation based on the organization’s size and age” (Yes, this is an actual response – all my quotes are directly from email communication with foundations). This is a standard response when foundations are not interested in funding my clients, despite them being similar to previously or currently funded grantees or fitting perfectly into their vague funding strategies.
In the rest of this article, I will cover signs 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 19 from the original article. I realize these are out of order, however, the signs overlap many times and I found it difficult but important to discuss as many signs as possible in each article (don’t worry, I’ll cover all 21 signs by the end of the month!) With that being said, let’s jump into the first sign:
7. You strive to create “objective” processes for grants, jobs, etc., believing that that would ensure those with the most merit would be selected.
I understand why foundations are hesitant to fund grassroots organizations, but what I don’t understand are the standards that are used in the various rubrics and committees to determine who has more or less merit. Merit, by definition, is “something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/merit) or “the quality of being good and deserving praise” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/merit). By very definition, a merit-based grant rubric helps separate “good” and “bad” applications based on a standard determined, in most cases, by a board of individuals not part of the neighborhood impacted by their grantmaking process.
One of my clients has huge goals set for the coming year but is struggling to get started as they do not have the capital nor will any funders take a chance to fund them. In this case, foundations are effectively ignoring both the chicken, the program itself, and the egg, the program history, expecting results. Why is a small nonprofit, or any nonprofit for that matter, required to show years of operating programs with zero funding in order to apply for funding to support programs they can’t run? This is often the case with letters of intent, which are the very first step of most grant applications. We are already hit with a barrier that demographically affects small black-or women-led nonprofits disproportionately from their white male counterparts and we are only at step one. There is little to no hope to reach step two, the actual application (assuming the predominantly white board of directors decides to invite you), if step one is designed to separate those that are “worthy” from those that clearly do not deserve praise.
I think it is also safe to say that success for a small nonprofit looks drastically different from a large or mid-sized nonprofit. For example, one of my clients was recently able to pay themselves for the work they do – a huge win for a small nonprofit during a global pandemic. From the outside, they’re still a small nonprofit with one full-time volunteer. A larger nonprofit might be able to have recently hired two new employees, which is ultimately the same outcome as my client. However, to compare the two situations as one being better or worse than the other is completely subjective. Instead, I would suggest considering things like turnover at those same nonprofits. Those two employees might only stick around for 6 months, accomplishing none of their organizational goals; meanwhile, the single “hire” at the small nonprofit is enough to motivate the one-man show to stay the course and keep going. From the perspective of the definition itself, both are equally meritorious.
8. You use white standards such as academic writing, formal credentials, “articulate” speech, and “professional” personal appearance to judge people and organizations’ intelligence and effectiveness, which often rewards white men and white-led orgs.
Programs are constantly created, even more so during COVID-19, to increase opportunity in historically underserved neighborhoods. These programs are designed to “end poverty” and “create economic opportunity” – all kinds of fancy buzz words that white donors love to hear. While these programs may have a net positive compared to what currently exists, they do not typically address accessibility and the everyday barriers to black potential grantees that white potential grantees will never consider. This could be something as simple as not having a printer at home (while we’re all working from home) to scan copies of 990s or other financial documentation required in most letters of intent or applications and then requiring uploaded documents to be either a Word document or PDF file (another barrier, assuming everyone has the ability to create PDFs).
Taking a step back to look at the grant process overall, the barriers start at the frequently asked questions page, if it exists. Many of the FAQs are poorly worded and do not address questions such as whether or not an organization can apply with a fiscal sponsor, whether they need their 501c3 tax status at the time of application, or simply who to contact in case they have questions. At the beginning of the pandemic, the newly created programs were very poorly worded and left small nonprofits wondering just what exactly was meant by “meeting community needs” or “providing critical services”. It took a month of waiting to find out that this particular program was only for nonprofits on the frontlines of COVID, specifically those distributing food or addressing education needs. The urgency to remedy the beginning of the pandemic with new programs to address very specific sustainability efforts while advertising the program as COVID-relief was detrimental to at least three of my clients that desperately needed the funding to survive. Fortunately, we managed to stop the bleeding and stabilize by either halting programming completely (something not everyone can do) or we were able to reallocate previously funded awards (something not everyone has).
On top of poorly worded FAQs, many of the program applications are actually barriers to the very demographic they are trying to support. A recent example of this was a foundation announcing their new program that has two pools of funding with letters of intent to begin the grant process. The larger pool only requires an estimated budget while the smaller pool requires the 501c3 tax letter or a fiscal sponsor, an operating budget, a board of directors list, and the most recent 990. Both pools of funding are designed to prioritize support to black or brown-led nonprofits. Remember, this is just for the letter of intent. I have no idea what to expect for the full application, assuming any of my clients are invited.
The grantmaking process is broken. Requiring this much documentation at the letter of intent stage, step one in most cases, perpetuates a broken system that only works when applying white standards (arguably, it works as intended). To change the system, there needs to be a universal process that focuses on accessibility. Just having the opportunities and deadlines posted publicly is not enough. I have stated this numerous times before, but I do not think there is a point discussing the opportunities and other donor-advised buzz words without addressing accessibility to those opportunities.
10. You avoid race to focus on class as the basis of so much of the injustice in the world.
As previously mentioned, the philanthropy world frequently uses white standards to determine who is funded and who is not worthy of funding (see how colonial that sounds?). One such method I’ve seen on a few occasions is the idea that your board members and their class or status determine your value. I recently received the response below when asking about a grant program for one of my newer clients: “We frequently find out about new nonprofits through…community leaders who sit on nonprofit boards. Having known local community leaders on your board is a criterion in our giving decisions.”
Focusing on board prominence is an absurd concept to determine merit. I know plenty of people on various boards across the city that contribute nothing but a vote if and when they show up to meetings. Many of the boards of foundations and funders across the region do not reflect the neighborhoods or demographics that they support. While the rest of us are on the ground, how would the white attorney or doctor know about the nonprofit ecosystem of a predominantly black neighborhood such as the Hill District or Homewood? They tend to be too high up in the clouds while the rest of us are doing the work.
Moving forward, I would encourage foundations to require board members to attend community meetings in the neighborhoods they serve so that they can directly interact with residents, businesses, and other community stakeholders. Board members must also educate themselves and be comfortable calling each other up, not out, when discussing racial justice. Finally, I would suggest board members be required to volunteer a set number of hours in the neighborhoods they serve. As a foundation, your board needs to either get on board or get off.
11. You make major decisions, such as grant selections, on your timeline and what is convenient for you or the wealthy people on your board.
Once again, white standards rule the grantmaking process as most modern foundations are the result of white industrial capitalism. As a result, foundations ensure that their program deadlines are comfortable for them while not considering those they intend to help. As we enter February, I am looking at somewhere around 12 deadlines by the end of the month. I write grants for a living and even I’m not sure I’ll be able to complete everything on time. Time is a huge barrier that is only recently being considered by foundations (it is at least being collected in letters of intent, I’m not sure where it goes from there, though). I mentioned earlier that step one has a barrier, but time is the barrier to step one itself. Some foundations did an amazing job with this at the beginning of COVID, with a few full applications only requiring 30 minutes to fill out and submit, while others are still learning.
A solution to fixing grant deadlines is to remove the “invitation only” mindset and follow your board meeting schedule for actual decisions. Essentially, every program is on a rolling basis with soft deadlines a month or so before your next board meeting where you plan to decide who is funded. Any applications submitted past the deadline immediately apply to the next board meeting.
15. You dismiss people’s actions to advance social justice if they are not done through the “right” and “proper” channels.
The grant process overall is too formal and often assumes you’re familiar with it. I recently attended informational sessions for a new foundation initiative and noticed the wording their CEO used: “Our primary tool is grantmaking, which I presume you are all familiar with”. This assumes that there is a basic understanding of how their grants work and at a higher level, a basic understanding of how grants work. In reality, there is little to no education around grant writing other than small, isolated programs. Even when it comes to technical assistance for grant writing, Neighborhood Allies’ Love My Neighbor! program is one of the few available programs that actively reaches out to support their targeted communities. While the program is great, it is unfortunately also geographically limited, and I wish it could expand to the entirety of Pittsburgh. The Love My Neighbor! program is just one small step in the right direction toward more free (yes, free) and accessible educational programs and workshops around grant writing led directly by funders.
Many foundations do not consider confidence as a barrier to their process. Free workshops on grant writing and the grant process need to become the norm so that individuals can establish, build, or maintain confidence in their work. I would suggest that program officers, at a minimum, show up to these workshops to introduce themselves and network with the people on the ground. They need to be both visible and approachable, not just in the room. A more human approach to the grant process and increased education from foundations leads to less tedious work in the office and more time to focus on grantees or potential grantees.
18. You play “Devil’s Advocate” when activists and organizers bring up solutions that may lead to radical changes.
Going back to something I wrote earlier, how helpful is it to commend the work being done out of pocket, but not fund it? I can’t imagine this scenario playing out in any other industry without someone getting fired. Why is philanthropy the exception?
Again, I understand why funding grassroots nonprofits is difficult, but I think something like funding black women, for example, is not a radical idea. I would argue that most organizations doing anything worthwhile are led by black women. We know that Pittsburgh is the worst city in the country for black women, so what are you doing about it?
For clarification, black women are not radical. Do not discredit them, fund them.
19. You say racialized and marginalized people complain too much and that they do not offer enough solutions.
As I’ve said or suggested numerous times throughout this (my responses keep getting shorter as I try to not repeat myself) article, foundations frequently do not support the chicken or the egg but expect an omelet. As a result, since the effort was not put in initially, nor will it be, no sustainable solutions are created, once again continuing the broken system. I’ll keep this section short and to the point: Listen to those you serve.
If they are potential grantees or current grantees, help them become or remain viable. Assist them as needed, ignoring formality on occasion, and nurture them. They know what they need better than you ever will. Do not tell them what you want to do. Listen to those you serve.
Hopefully you’re still with me, I know this first article is rather lengthy. If you’ve made it this far, thank you! This concludes my first article, White Standards, part one 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. Stay tuned for more!