Back Donate

In September 2024, NCRP’s Senior Movement Engagement Manager for Climate Change Senowa Mize-Fox and NCRP’s Research and Development Associate Spencer Ozer attended New York City Climate Week. Climate Week is a series of events sponsored by The Climate Group that aims to bring together actors from all different sectors with a shared vision of tackling the complicated and multifaceted issues of the climate crisis. In this special 2-Part blog post, you will hear from Ozer and Mize-Fox as they recount their key takeaways from their time at Climate Week 2024. This is part 2 of 2.

senowa mize-fox headshot

This year was my third and Spencer’s first Climate Week, and it was the largest in terms of attendance by a wide margin compared to the last two years I attended. Our primary focus of the week was to promote the first part of a three-part research project NCRP is working on with the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) and the Tishman School for Environment and Design called the Just Returns Project. The first iteration of this body of work focuses on the investments of the top 50 climate funders according to the Donors of Color Network Climate Justice Funding Pledge and how they line up with those funders’ statements on justice and equity. You can read the first part of the report here.

In addition to promoting this work, Spencer and I attended several movement and/or funder centered events related to our climate justice work at NCRP.

I spend a lot of time in my work organizing philanthropy and bringing attention to what the climate justice movement calls false solutions: “solutions” to the climate crisis that are often technocratic and grounded in our market driven capitalist economic system. False solutions are usually created and implemented by those who platform themselves as experts when it comes to mitigating and/or adapting to the climate crisis. They are well funded at a disproportionate rate to strategies and tactics that are developed and practiced by those on the frontlines of this crisis. Those who are most impacted.

Anecdotally, here is a sentiment amongst frontline led organizations that Climate Week is a waste of time and not representative of their organizing work. Conversely, Climate Week is also more accessible for those in the US than major global climate summits like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Conference of Parties (UNFCC COP), which also happens in the fall. Last year, COP was hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan, an oil rich country in Central Asia with deep ties to the petroleum industry. Given that and various other human rights concerns, the focus shifted to treat NYC Climate Week as a “mini-COP.”

Something that is clear each time I have attended Climate Week is the seemingly opposing objectives in the events that are led by climate justice movement groups versus those led by funders, corporations, think tanks and academia and Big Greens: large legacy environmental organizations who historically receive a much larger share of funding compared to grassroots organizations. Most of the official Climate Week events are corporate sponsored and promote one size fits all “solutions” funded by venture capital and/or institutional philanthropy. There is a lot of greenwashing and lip service – almost an ode to the frontlines in a way, but without giving any credit where credit is due. Meanwhile, the movement led and centered events focus on deepening commitment to supporting those most impacted by the climate crisis, which will in turn support us all.

What stood out to me in the frontline led and informed spaces was not who was in the room (movement leaders, aligned funders, some curious academics), but who was not in the room, even when invited. It is important to have spaces to strategize and build power amongst aligned groups and individuals for the purpose of advancing a shared vision. However, this work does not happen in a vacuum and requires funding, allies and co-conspirators, those who stand ready to advance the work in solidarity with those on the ground.

Some events that were funder-led but movement informed and did a great job at bringing together frontline movement organizers (mostly grantees) and funders; such as the HIVE Fund’s 5-year anniversary celebration. This event that Spencer and I both attended stood out because of how they centered their frontline grantees by opening up space for them to talk about their work and the impacts that continuous resourcing can have. It is infuriating how rare this approach seemed throughout the week. Many of the funder-led spaces that I learned about through philanthropic colleagues were panels and/or conversations between mainstream climate funders and big greens with little to no frontline representation to be seen.

As we look toward NYC Climate Week 2025, I cannot help but think of the ways in which the urgency has shifted. By the time this piece is published, we will have ushered in a new presidential administration that has historically doubled down on climate crisis denialism and misinformation. There is anticipation of broad attacks on civil society organizations, and those that fund them. We are seeing major billionaire climate donors such as Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, walk back user protections on their websites that will affect millions, hold meetings with the incoming president and donate millions of dollars to the inauguration all for the purpose of protecting their bottom line. Furthermore, as we watch in horror at the destruction and increasing militarization that the Greater Los Angeles wildfires are bringing to thousands of people who are working nonstop to support each other through this crisis, we have climate tech billionaire Elon Musk severely downplaying the role that the climate crisis is responsible for the fires.

Moving more resources to the frontlines, while stopping the advancement of false solutions at events like NYC Climate Week is not just about ensuring that there is equity in the work. It is not about throwing pennies at movement groups to make your DEI requirements and to be able to put Black and brown faces on your homepage. It is about actively rejecting the influence and narrative that billionaires and multi-millionaires (and their corporations and foundations) have in the climate space. Whether you are an institutional funder or non-movement centered funder intermediary, you need to show up with the same enthusiasm and resources for movement groups as you do for the technocrats and big greens.

When you let high net worth wealth holders call the shots, you are not just “being responsive to the field,” you are sending a very clear message to impacted communities that their tested and proven solutions do not matter. You are contributing to further marginalizing them, while partnering with and listening to actors who are actively pushing for their erasure – and for that matter, the denouncement of the climate crisis as a whole. You have the power to help shift the narrative and ensure that the climate justice movement is deeply resourced for the fights ahead, use it.

 


Prior to working with NCRP as the Movement Engagement Manager for Climate Justice, she spent four and a half years with the Climate Justice Alliance – a national grassroots alliance made up of frontline member organizations working towards a Just Transition – doing operations and membership engagement work. 

In previous years, she worked closely with Black Lives Matter Vermont, The Vermont Workers’ Center (VWC), and her former labor union, United Electrical Workers. 

She has a degree in Natural Resources Planning from the University of Vermont, and a Masters’ Degree in International Sustainable Development from the University of Manchester in the UK. 

During her free time, Senowa is involved in her neighborhood mutual aid group, and loves to hike, swim, and peruse the internet for anything with rainbows on it. Senowa resides in Baltimore, MD with 3 cats and an ample amount of house plants. 

In September 2024, NCRP’s Senior Movement Engagement Manager for Climate Change Senowa Mize-Fox and NCRP’s Research and Development Associate Spencer Ozer attended New York City Climate Week. Climate Week is a series of events sponsored by The Climate Group that aims to bring together actors from all different sectors with a shared vision of tackling the complicated and multifaceted issues of the climate crisis. In this special 2-Part blog post, you will hear from Ozer and Mize-Fox as they recount their key takeaways from their time at Climate Week 2024. This is part 2 of 2.

The buzz around this year’s Climate Week was palpable, showcasing one of the largest turnouts in the event’s history. People from all over the world attended in an attempt to spread the message of climate mitigation and try to learn what can be done to save our planet. This year was my first Climate Week and the enthusiasm of everyone present could not be missed. I was shocked by the variety of lectures, panels, presentations, and other events that were being held throughout the week. Still, despite the vast number of talks and diversity of the attendees, there were some glaring shortcomings present throughout the week.

Beneath the excitement, familiar dynamics persisted. To me, it felt as if there were two very different conferences happening at the same time, one conference for funders, the other for movement groups. Movement-led events during Climate Week centered around advancing the principles of a just transition. These discussions are built on existing community-led solutions, focusing on equity, justice, and sustainability. They emphasized the importance of leveraging local knowledge and ensuring that the transition to a low-carbon economy prioritizes those most affected by climate change.

In contrast, funder-led events leaned heavily on technocratic approaches, with much of the focus on new technologies and innovative possibilities. These discussions often carried a sense of excitement about the potential for breakthroughs but were less rooted in the lived experiences of frontline communities. Despite the richness of ideas on both sides, the events often felt siloed, with limited interaction between movement groups and funders. Attendees tended to stick to events within their respective circles, creating an echo chamber effect where conversations seemed to “preach to the choir.” The lack of audience crossover underscored a persistent gap: How can we foster more meaningful exchanges between funders and movement groups to align strategies and amplify impact?

Spencer Ozer at Climate Week panel alongside Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) and the Tishman School for Environment and Design

While in New York City, I had the pleasure of sitting on a panel alongside Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) and the Tishman School for Environment and Design to discuss some timely research I had done for a project called the Just Returns Project. We investigated the investment and grantmaking strategies of some of the most influential climate funders in the sector whose values aligned with our own. Our goal was to accurately identify how these funders were investing their money in order to find out if these funders’ investment strategies were aligned with their missions, stated values, and grantmaking strategies. The reason this type of data is important to look at is because a lot of funders are talking about climate justice and a just transition, but not all of them are necessarily acting on these principles. And even among those funders who are starting to shift toward incorporating a just transition into their organizational strategy, investment portfolios are often overlooked as being part of that strategy. NCRP’s research shows that many funders are in fact undermining their own grantmaking by investing in extractive industries that directly work against their mission. That is why it’s important to make this information known, so we can help these funders more effectively shift toward a just transition approach.

The division of priorities between funders and movement groups was apparent as I looked out at the audience during the panel discussion. The Just Returns Project was conceived by people in the frontline climate movement, aimed to bring funders and movement leaders together in the same room to discuss issues in the sector. However, there were almost no funders in the room, despite many being invited to attend. This raised a critical question: How can movement-supported ideas and goals be implemented if funders are not actively engaging with those driving these efforts?

The disconnect between the two groups reflects the broader challenges in the philanthropic space. Funders often operate within a framework that prioritizes innovation and scalability, while movement groups focus on community-driven solutions that may not fit neatly into these paradigms. Bridging this gap requires a fundamental shift in how funders view their role in the climate movement. As Climate Week highlighted, there is no shortage of passion or ideas within the climate movement. However, achieving a just transition will require more than parallel efforts—it will require true collaboration. Funders have a unique opportunity to support the vision of frontline communities by aligning their resources with movement-led strategies, and now is the time to seize that opportunity.

The challenge is clear: How do we ensure that funders are not only present but actively engaged in these critical conversations? Until this issue is addressed, the potential of the climate movement to drive transformative change will remain constrained. As we move forward, it’s crucial to reflect on these challenges and seek out solutions that foster deeper connections and shared commitment. The future of our planet depends on our ability to work together—across silos, sectors, and strategies—to build a just and sustainable world.

 


Spencer joined the NCRP team in December 2019 as a research and development intern and has since become a vital member of the organization’s Research team. As a Research Associate, his efforts have focused on data collection and analysis for NCRP’s Movement Investment Project, as well as assisting the Engagement Team. 

Before NCRP, Spencer held several hands-on positions working with animals. While he is passionate about protecting wildlife and natural resources, he now enjoys putting his skills as a researcher to good use strengthening communities and supporting the mission of NCRP. 

Spencer received a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Eckerd College. As an undergraduate student, he developed a passion for research, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data to study the relationship between people and the environment. 

Other than large datasets, Spencer enjoys the outdoors, music and his cat. 

It’s been nearly three years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, opening the gates for stricter abortion bans and setting new limits to healthcare access across the U.S. With the shifts to the landscape of abortion access, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) have positioned themselves as go-to resources for pregnant people. But to be clear: CPCs are never what they seem and are deceptive by design.

CPCs take on the false perception of supportive spaces that offer “nonjudgement” help. However, they are pivotal players in the anti-abortion movement, using their proximity to wealth and power to mislead abortion seekers and block access to comprehensive reproductive care. The political power and deep funding of the global network anti-abortion movement is exemplified in the fall 2024 campaign for 40 Days of Life, which culminated in a new president pardoning two dozen anti-abortion extremists.

At the end of last year, NCRP used some of our early findings into philanthropies’ investments in CPCs and shared what’s happening, their rise, their money, and their harmful tactics. So, we could better understand the threats to abortion access and what role the sector can play in supporting abortion seekers.

abortion is healthcare

The Growth of CPCs  

Between 2018 and 2022, CPCs experienced explosive growth. Their revenue jumped nearly 30%, adding over 130 new locations nationwide. By 2021, they collectively raked in a staggering $1.2 billion.  

To put that in perspective, $1.2 billion could pay for prenatal care, delivery, and postpartum services for nearly 69,000 uninsured pregnant people. Instead, this money goes toward spreading anti-abortion propaganda, not actual healthcare.  

Where’s the Money Going?  

Considering the funding that CPCs receive from the state and the sector, they rarely deliver actual medical care. The average cost of prenatal and postpartum services is expensive, averaging $20,000 or more, but CPCs are prioritizing manipulation over meaningful support. We urge funders to imagine what resources could exist if they were redirected towards real medical care and practical support organizations. Instead, CPCs are using philanthropic dollars to mislead and coerce people into continuing pregnancies.   

The Playbook: Fear, Racism and Faith 

CPCs thrive on deception, using a combination of fear, racism and faith to sway vulnerable people.

  • Fear: CPCs exaggerate abortion risks while ignoring the very real dangers of carrying a pregnancy to term, especially in maternal health deserts. They’ll throw out debunked claims about abortion causing infertility or mental health issues, banking on confusion to push their agenda.
  • Racism: They frequently position themselves as saviors, claiming to address racial disparities in maternal health, while refusing to provide real medical care or access to abortion. By co-opting culturally significant imagery, such as the legacy of Black midwives, and promoting harmful stereotypes about family structures in communities of color, CPCs perpetuate systemic racism while advancing their political goals. This approach manipulates and marginalizes the very communities they claim to support
  • Faith: Emotional manipulation is their bread and butter. The “ultrasound persuasion” tactic, for example, relies on the claim that seeing an ultrasound makes 80% of people “choose life.” It’s a guilt trip dressed up as care.

CPCs vs. Abortion Providers

While the other side is sustained beyond reason, actual frontline abortion providers and independent clinics are fighting to keep their doors open. From 2020 to 2021, abortion providers saw a bump in funding, a likely result of rage-giving, but even that is minor in comparison. CPCs earned nearly eight times more revenue in 2021—$2.8 billion versus $236 million.

This isn’t just a funding gap; it’s a systemic issue. CPCs are surpassing abortion providers in resources while weaponizing their wealth to block access to real healthcare.

Despite CPCs portrayal that they are led by healthcare experts and professionals, think again. Many are run by people with political or religious motives with absolutely no medical training. These leaders use CPCs as tools to push anti-choice agendas, not to help pregnant people make informed decisions.

And it doesn’t stop at their ultrasound buses or diaper closets. CPCs are deeply involved in political campaigns, spending millions to oppose abortion rights initiatives in states like Florida and South Dakota. Between 2016 and 2022, they raised over $1 billion to combat abortion protections. Their scare tactics, like falsely claiming abortion protections would lead to unsafe, illegal procedures are designed to confuse voters and destroy reproductive access.

my body, my care

What Now? 

CPCs have built an empire on misinformation, while independent clinics and practical support organizations are left struggling to provide actual services and care.

No matter one’s personal stance on abortion access, funding for reproductive health should always prioritize access to accurate, comprehensive, and confidential care from transparent, trustworthy service providers.

The sector needs to intentionally fund abortion with all circumstances considered, including the work of fighting against anti-abortion groups, to secure access and sustain those leading the work.

This is about more than healthcare—it’s about autonomy, dignity, and justice. We can’t let CPCs keep silencing people’s voices and choices. The stakes are too high.


Brandi Collins-Calhoun is a Movement Engagement Manager at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). A writer, educator and reproductive justice organizer, she leads the organization’s Reproductive Access and Gendered Violence portfolio of work. 

Appeasement is in vogue. That doesn’t make it a good idea. 

We’re barely a month past the 2024 election, and the hot takes are flying. But a clear theme is already emerging.

Former Hewlett program officer Daniel Stid captured it recently for the Chronicle of Philanthropy. In his op-ed, he calls on philanthropy to stop “funding the resistance” to Trumpism and instead “support pluralism in civil society.” The key to a healthy democracy, he argues, is to turn away from “the high-octane, all-or-nothing advocacy and activism” that have plagued the country since 2016 and are “further stoking the fires” of polarization.

Arguments like these misjudge the purpose of vital, community-led work and the movements that arise from it. They mistake centrism for pluralism, and they advocate neutrality at a time when speaking truth to power is necessary, not optional, for democracy.

It also won’t work as a strategy. An unapologetically brave, consistent, and vocal solidarity with social justice movements is the best thing funders can do now.

Here’s why.

Backlash by another name

Donor funding for equity and social justice movements has been wildly overstated. But some commentators insist that supporting these approaches at any level is counterproductive. These strategies are inherently polarizing, they argue, and that’s the reason our democratic norms are the mess they are today.

If this is the concern, let’s get specific. What exactly counts as polarizing? Is this what they fear will worsen the health of our democracy?

  • Is it helping immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers access legal services, prevent family separation, and chart a path to citizenship?
  • Is it making sure that queer people aren’t discriminated against in housing and in workplaces, and that trans people can live in joy without fear of state or personal violence?
  • Is vital healthcare like abortion access, doula support, and Black maternal health practices the issue?
  • Are community-led fights for clean air, clean water, and a cooler climate the culprit?
  • Perhaps reducing the racial and gender wealth gap or telling complete stories about our history is the problem?

For my money each of these examples, and many more like them, create a more truly pluralist world, not less. They all ensure that people too often kept from seats of power have a fair shot at correcting past imbalances and improving our collective norms, culture and policies. As a bonus, everyone tends to benefit from this approach too, in the same way that parents with strollers and workers with carts benefit from the curb-cuts that disabled activists spent years fighting for.

Yet even if these approaches are polarizing to some, isn’t that a strange metric for a worthy cause or good grant? Creating a better, more just world often makes enemies. Power concedes nothing without a demand, and demands aren’t made to make the powerful comfortable. Sixty years on from the March on Washington, it’s worth remembering that the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century was incredibly polarizing. It was also, to state the obvious, worth doing anyway – as are the fights for continued liberation today.

Demonstrators sit, with their feet in the Reflecting Pool, during the March on Washington, 1963]

Human rights aren’t a popularity contest. We cannot change what’s possible by asking our dreams for a better world to sit down and whisper quietly in the corner. As James Baldwin wrote in 1962, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Nor can we pretend like these conversations are happening in an ahistorical vacuum. An entire ascendant far-right movement is actively pursuing a white ethnonational state with riches crowded even further at the top, bodily autonomy for the few, an overheating planet, and the criminalization of entire communities for just existing. And they’ve been abetted by patient, generous, flexible philanthropic dollars while the majority of donors sit quietly and neutrally on the same moving train.

Which begs the question: Who gets to decide when strategy A serves the lofty goals of pluralism, and when strategy B only fans the flames of division? Lately, it seems like “pluralism” has become little more than the new civility politics: a conveniently vague definition commentators can use to delegitimize overdue fights for justice and accountability as soon as they get impatient or uncomfortable.

I struggle to find the value in setting a civic table where open bigotry is begrudged for the bankrupt sake of moral “balance.” Without a clear moral backbone, an inconsistent standard like this is far more likely to indulge the loudest reactionary voices than reveal which work is worth funding.

Philanthropy’s still giving pennies for progress.

I’ve worked in the philanthropic sector for over a decade. I was around for the first Trump administration and most of the Obama administration before that. In all that time, have I seen philanthropy transform beyond recognition into a blazing beacon of progressivism? Hardly.

Funding, for starters, still has a long way to go. Institutional grantmakers devoted less than 20% of their dollars to low-income people, 15% to communities of color, and 3% to immigrants and refugees in 2021 according to NCRP analysis of Candid data. Research suggests only about 0.5% ($356 million) of foundation dollars are explicitly given for Black women and girls and 0.25% ($258 million) for LGBTQ communities.

Grassroots organizers and social justice movement groups also struggle to find consistent funding year-to-year, especially in rural, conservative places. It’s a stark contrast to the long-term support far-right institutions have enjoyed for generations. Between 2015 and 2021, for example, we found that “more than two dozen nonprofits focused specifically on undermining electoral, liberal and economic democracy increased their fundraising three-fold to over $500 million per year.” In 2022 alone, just eight right-wing funders moved over $530 million to organizations working to roll back civil and human rights and undermine real pluralism.

Even progressive funders are often unwilling to relinquish control for general operating support and multi-year grants. Many, if they’re honest, care more about the story their grants tell than the ecosystem they’re a humble part of.

And while foundation staff are finally beginning to better represent the rest of the country, the foundation board members who call the shots at most foundations are decisively not a pluralistic reflection of the country’s demographic, geographic or ideological diversity – they’re usually far whiter, more male and more conservative than most Americans.

If anything, we’re on the threshold of an even more plutocratic era in philanthropy. Billionaires’ influence is rising, and donor transparency is on the decline. Thankfully, more funders embrace the vision of a just transition than they did a decade ago. But very few funders explicitly back alternatives to the dysfunctional capitalist system that bankrolled their rise.

When funding for equity and justice has been so inconsistent with philanthropy’s means, are we really surprised that we have plenty of work left to do? To suggest the solution, now, is to turn off the sprinkler when communities on the ground have long called for a fire hose is misguided at best and unconscionable at worst.

There’s progress worth celebrating, to be sure. But it’s important to see these as the hopeful breaks from the norm that they are. Otherwise, by over-stating their progress, funders will fail to accurately see the world in front of them, retreating to a supposedly safe corner of centrism that does not exist.

Appeasement is not a winning strategy.

There are plenty of funders who care more about supporting movements effectively than the false virtue of avoiding polarization, but they’re apprehensive. They look at last year’s affirmative action ruling, and they ask their lawyers to go much further. They see the shameless attacks on the Fearless Fund, and they claw back their own racial equity language. They see the spike in xenophobia and ask grantees to strike the word “immigrant” from applications. They see the outrage over the genocide in Gaza and pull funds from groups who speak out at all. They hear the incoming president promise to squash the hint of dissent, and they wonder how far they can retreat into the shadows. This is a mistake.

First, there’s no guarantee that a silent tongue or a defensive crouch will leave foundations and donors unscathed. Supposedly centrist funders may be surprised to find that it’s not just “woke” scapegoats with a target on their back. That’s why I was glad recently to see several industry groups take a stand, and that work must continue.

Second, at this moment, few are better positioned to take risks than philanthropy. Shoring up legal defenses is a legitimately good idea – but only if it enables bolder action and greater solidarity, not a white flag and bent knee.

Don’t just take my word for it either. Leading scholars of authoritarianism like Timothy David Snyder are clear: “Do not obey in advance.” When people “think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked,” he notes, they’re only “teaching power what it can do.”

Instead, funders’ priority should be making sure people on the ground have what they need and more. Paul Di Donato at Proteus lays out several great recommendations, from physical and digital security to compliance and mental health supports. Grants and endowments, after all, are replaceable. Lives are not.

Rise Up With Asians Rally & March, San Francisco, CA 2021

Beyond resistance

In truth, critics of a potential second Resistance™ usually make the same mistake many donors did with the first: Trump alone – as a man, as an administration, and even as a political moment – is not the point.

Resistance to harm matters just as much when a Democratic administration is the perpetrator. It matters when it’s a national headline, and it matters when it’s a local policy passed in an empty town council room. It matters when the impact is immediately obvious, and it matters when our kids or our downstream neighbors will feel it years later. Funders romanticizing recent resistance moments may miss the proven and successful generational organizing campaigns from decades past. They overlook people, often in some of the most repressive places, already building beautiful alternatives to the extractive world we have.

So – what then? What now?

At NCRP, we’re pursuing the same thing we’ve always wanted: a world where the public good prevails and anyone can thrive, regardless of wealth, privilege, or opportunity.

We’re pretty sure how to get there, too. We know from our high-quality research, through our lived experience fighting for justice – and because it’s not rocket science.

For nearly 50 years, we’ve found that funders have the greatest impact when they acknowledge their history, build transformative relationships, and honor communities closest to harm. The best ones build, share, wield, and yes, even cede power so folks can provide needed services, organize deeply, and build movements that challenge and remake the unjust systems that affect all our lives. And the few visionaries really listening?

They show up not just for a year or two at a time but for a generation and beyond, consistently returning the assets that were never solely theirs in the first place.

That necessary work persists, no matter who’s in office.

Let’s keep going.


Ben Barge is NCRP’s Field Director. In this role, Barge strengthens NCRP’s relationships with U.S. social movements and philanthropic organizations to move money and power to community-led advocacy and organizing.

CONTACT(S):  Russell Roybal rroybal@ncrp.org 
                             Jennifer Amuzie jamuzie@ncrp.org

A time for radical solidarity

For nearly 50 years, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has spoken truth to a sector that isn’t always ready to hear it. In moments like this when our worst instincts would be to shelter, blame and self-protect, NCRP calls on funders to move with boldness and work alongside movement groups at higher and more sustained levels. This news challenges us to be more committed to our values and to be more courageous, not less. “This is a time for radical solidarity,” said Aaron Dorfman, NCRP’s President & CEO.

Funders must not abandon groups on the frontlines of our democracy. Our recent voter engagement brief shows that 57% of Americans live in a state that has passed laws limiting civic engagement work, but the leading democracy funders only allotted 6% of grants to voter registration. The most vulnerable pro-democracy groups have been telling funders that the cost of registering one person has gone up exponentially with each federal election. The feast-or-famine, late cycle funding that democracy groups are subjected to doesn’t help them to build power in communities. It doesn’t help these groups to defend themselves against onerous, unjust laws.

All movements feel the implications of an election to some degree:

NCRP’s 2022 report highlighted the stark difference between the support that migrant justice frontline groups received under the last two administrations. “We have all witnessed during this campaign how migrant communities have been scapegoated and targeted for potential violence,” NCRP Chief External Affairs Officer and Vice President, Russell Roybal said. “The organizations that serve these communities deserve consistent support and safety.”

Climate justice: It is more important than ever to continue funding those on the frontlines of climate who have had to endure many election boom and bust funding cycles while the need for their work has only grown more important. “Regardless of the outcome of this year’s election, the climate crisis is not dissipating,” said Senowa Mize-Fox, Movement Engagement Manager for Climate Justice and Just Transition.

To bolster access to abortion in a “post-Roe” nation, philanthropic dollars must be going to abortion funds and direct service organizations on the ground that are facing urgent needs from their community every day. During elections and times of crisis, resources get diverted from abortion funds to larger organizations supporting national advocacy instead of local work. Many funders have succumbed to the false choice between supporting local and national, but well-resourced frontline groups embedded in their communities build power that is felt on every level.

The call to move boldly feels particularly challenging in an environment that has become hostile to progressive movements and their funders. Last year’s Fearless Fund lawsuit and the RICO case against protestor’s bail funds were intended to have a chilling effect on giving, regardless of their success. We owe each other courage and hope and that starts with radical solidarity. With stakes higher than ever, the philanthropic sector must not shrink back.

In national discussions around political empowerment, large swaths of the public often forget about Indigenous communities. Despite the systemic overlook of Native voters, past election cycles have proven the power of the Native Vote in swing states to shift electoral outcomes – most recently seen in Arizona during 2020.

The outcome of the 2024 Election is crucial for many reasons – with the looming threat against women’s & LGBTQ2S+’s bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, and essentially, democracy – it also presents a new level of adversity to Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. As Indigenous leaders, organizers, and community members, this is the time to come together to envision a sustainable effort that places strategic activism, resource mobilization, capacity building, and narrative change as means to build Native community political power. As a movement-building organization, NDN Collective knows that grassroots organizing is integral to the building of Indigenous power and community self-determination, which can then be exercised at the polls and beyond.

NDN Collective's Advancement Officer, Kellian Staggers
Kellian Staggers

Social movement organizing and activism play a crucial role in the effort to empower Native communities, as they raise awareness about key issues impacting us, from environmental justice to treaty rights. Through direct action, community organizing, and coalition-building, Indigenous communities create space for collective solidarity that advocates for systemic change. When we mobilize our community members, we ensure that Indigenous voices are amplified and affirm Native perspectives are being represented throughout the entirety of the political process, not just during elections.

Other Native-led organizations such as Native Organizers Alliance (NOA) and Advance Native Political Leadership (ANPL) are at the forefront of empowering Indigenous communities, advocating for policy changes, and ensuring that Native voices are represented and heard in political processes across Turtle Island. Both NOA and ANPL empower and equip Native leaders with the tools and knowledge they need to engage in political processes and advocate for the rights of Indigenous People. At NDN Collective, we see our role in democracy and civic engagement work as a container that brings together community leaders and policymakers who support the development of a shared, muti-racial political analysis that fights authoritarianism through systemic change from the intersection of LANDBACK and Black Reparations, in pursuit of a more just and equitable society.

This multifaceted approach involves collective power building through political education, coalition building, rematriation of resources, and political advocacy, we aim to support full and effective participation in the democratic process and preservation of fundamental rights, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As Nwamaka Agbo (CEO of Kataly Foundation) stated in her recent piece in The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “We must sustain the organizations that pursue civic engagement work, particularly outside election seasons, when many politicians forget the platitudes they made to poor and working-class communities in exchange for votes.”

Practitioners, those who have been doing the work for generations, deserve to be supported and trusted by Philanthropy that they know best for their community. This leads us to underscore the critical importance of funding grassroots social movements, and the role funders can play at the core of building Native political power. Sustainable, multi-year, unrestricted funding through philanthropy, is necessary for fostering political engagement, supporting community initiatives, and maintaining advocacy efforts. The advancement of Indigenous political engagement requires a true desire from funders who value long-term commitment, to engage in partnerships with organizations that continue to lead such efforts. Sustainable funding allows for long-term strategic planning, fostering a robust infrastructure that can adapt and respond to emerging challenges. Without it [commitment], philanthropy will continue to invest according to trends that fail to produce real, systemic change.

As organizers, we understand there is an inherent level of danger that our work entails and with the current political climate, we have to anticipate the potential rise of violence near the polls. Incorporating safety and wellness plans into movement strategies is the reality for many grassroots organizers, and it will be critical that Native-led organizations focused on building political power are well-resourced for this work. Philanthropy has historically underinvested in initiatives that prioritize Indigenous leadership and self-determination, and we expect this challenge and others to remain as we move through this election cycle. Funders and philanthropy must be dedicated to ensuring that Indigenous communities feel fully supported and empowered to exercise their self-determination.

Indigenous Peoples’ rights, struggles, and solutions must be taken into account in the forums that shape policies. By building stronger partnerships across different movements and with policymakers, it’s imperative to aim toward making sure that our policy needs and demands are understood and met. Increased participation in these diverse movement spaces, ensures that Indigenous People are fully involved in vital intersectional discussions, strategies, and policymaking.

Ultimately, the empowerment of our social movements is intrinsically linked to the availability and management of financial resources, making them a cornerstone of achieving change. This is precisely why it’s philanthropy’s responsibility to rematriate wealth back to the hands of communities. When our organizations are resourced, we can better organize, campaign, and lobby for policies that reflect the interests and protect the rights of Indigenous people.

 


 

Kellian Staggers (She/Her), Diné (Navajo) and Black, is deeply invested in Indigenous-focused policy development that promotes equitable conditions for all peoples. As an Advancement Officer with NDN Collective, Kellian serves as an advocate in donor relations that bolsters resource reallocation to Indigenous-led advocacy and infrastructure development efforts. While obtaining a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University, Kellian supported Indigenous youth communities through educational policy development and Admissions student outreach. Her commitment to resource rematriation and policy reform underscores a determination to create sustainable systemic change. 

Reflecting on two thought-provoking articles from my LinkedIn feed—Brenda Solorzano’s Rigorous Evaluation Versus Trust-Based Learning: Is This a Valid Dichotomy? (highlighted by Catherine Garcia last month) and Lora Smith’s How to Flip the Script on Foundation Reporting—I’m struck by their critiques of the status quo in philanthropic evaluation. Both pieces challenge traditional methods rooted in capitalist ROI frameworks, which often prioritize the perspectives and interests of white people. As Jara Dean-Coffey’s work lays out, these frameworks stem from the practices of wealthy, white male industrialists and reinforce power imbalances, ignoring context and the unpredictable, long-term nature of social change.

Both Solorzano and Smith emphasize that funder accountability is crucial, particularly given the historical origins and ongoing impact of philanthropic wealth amassed at the expense of marginalized communities. NCRP’s Cracks in the Foundation research, led by my colleague Katherine Ponce and funded by iF, A Foundation for Radical Possibility, shows how the wealth fueling philanthropy in the DC area was amassed at the expense of Black residents. Smith highlights a staggering statistic: in 2020, US foundations invested $1.2 trillion in global extractive markets while distributing only $88.6 billion to grantees.

Adrianne Glover
Adrianne Glover

These extractive markets often perpetuate the very harms philanthropy seeks to repair, making it imperative for funders to scrutinize their investments and hold themselves accountable to the communities they serve.

Historically, evaluation practices have often catered to funders rather than the communities and movements they aim to support. This disconnect can skew priorities, fostering compliance over collaboration and sidelining the voices essential for authentic, impactful change. Most funders require grantee reporting as a one-way street, leaving community-based organizations—often with limited resources—struggling to meet these demands.

To shift this dynamic, as evaluators we need to move in alignment with the future we want to live in. A starting point is to ask grantees how funders can be accountable to and better support them. In a previous project, I had the opportunity to work on an evaluation engagement that flipped this script, resulting in meaningful changes in how a foundation approached its grantees. Solorzano discusses similar tools, while Smith highlights the Right Relations Collaborative, led by Indigenous leaders, which encourages funders to reflect on their “money stories” and shift their practices towards equity and justice.

Several equitable evaluation approaches can help subvert dominant power dynamics and prioritize community autonomy. This sampling falls short of a complete offering, but includes:

  • The Equitable Evaluation Framework ensures that evaluation practices serve equity by prioritizing multicultural validity, participant ownership, and examining historical and structural factors that contribute to social inequities.
  • Made in Africa Evaluation prioritizes Indigenous knowledge and local contexts, promoting evaluation methods that reflect African relational approaches while challenging Western-centric practices.
  • Quantitative Critical Race Theory equips researchers with critical practices for rethinking data collection and analysis, highlighting biases in numbers and categories, emphasizing diverse voices, and promoting social justice to foster equity.

 

When employed intentionally, these methods can better prioritize the autonomy of frontline communities and emphasize the importance of critiquing how funding relationships impact movement and program strategies and outcomes. Evaluators must pay attention to power dynamics and advocate for changes where funders yield power to communities, developing learning agendas that focus not only on outcomes but also on the quality of relationships and accountability structures that enable communities and frontline movements to thrive.

Additionally, we often treat funding and evaluation as short-term endeavors that assume a linear path to change. A colleague recently shared a valuable insight he’s learned from our work together: “Change is never A, then B, then C. It’s X, then A (‘F you’), and then 7!” This captures the essence of social change—it’s complex and non-linear. In advocacy work, short-term outcomes frequently fail to reflect the deeper impact of movement-building. Significant victories can take years to materialize, and essential groundwork like base-building often happens beneath the surface.

Focusing solely on immediate outcomes risks undermining long-term strategies for deep, systemic change. Echoing principles rooted in Black feminism, as advocated by adrienne marie brown and others who promote adaptive and emergent strategies, we must recognize that effective evaluation models can embrace complexity and uncertainty. Approaches like developmental evaluation facilitate continuous feedback and learning, ensuring our strategies remain responsive to the evolving landscape of social change. Such evaluations respect the nonlinear paths of progress and can honor the collective wisdom of communities as they navigate challenges and opportunities.

Ultimately, we must rethink our approach to learning and accountability within philanthropy and evaluation. It is essential to shift our focus from short-term outputs to long-term, sustainable change that allows communities to control their own futures. To enact real change, funders should embrace the five-point action plan outlined in Cracks in the Foundation: confront the historical harms associated with their wealth, engage directly with impacted communities, make reparations, decolonize institutional policies and practices, and advocate publicly for broader reparations. As evaluators, especially those of us who have benefited from racial capitalism, we need to align our practices with these transformative changes. While there is no straightforward roadmap for this journey, prioritizing equity and justice in our evaluation efforts will pave the way for a more just and liberated future where communities—not funders—hold the power.


Adrianne Glover (they/she) is a values-driven learning and evaluation strategist with over nine years of experience in culturally responsive and equitable evaluation. Formerly the Evaluation Manager at NCRP, she led the development of strategic learning systems to support the organization’s theory of change. Prior to NCRP, they worked as an evaluation consultant with Creative Research Solutions and various domestic and international nonprofit organizations to foster equitable practices and drive transformative, systemic change. Deeply committed to advocacy, community care, and accountability, she uses data to tell impactful data-driven stories about social movements. Based in the Atlanta metro area on Muscogee (Creek) land, Adrianne enjoys spending time in community through relationships, events, and organizing and connecting with the earth. 

As a small way to help, NCRP has gathered a list below of local funds and resources we’ve found helpful since Helene made landfall. This list may evolve as we learn more. And as always, those on the ground know best what they need.

Funders, we strongly encourage you to use this list to devote resources now, while need is high, and plan to sustain support later, once the public eye turns elsewhere but the rebuilding remains.

Storms reveal and aggravate the injustices we already live with. And climate change is already bringing us more. That’s why in this list, you’ll notice both established funds and mutual aid groups. You’ll see big, known names, and you’ll also see lesser-known groups centering the voices of rural communities, immigrants, Black and brown communities, queer voices and more. By supporting both, philanthropy will be much, much more effective.

Our friends at Grantmakers for Southern Progress put it well: “Our safety is intertwined with yours. We have a duty to get through this together.”

The southeastern US is no stranger to major storms. Hurricane Helene – and now, Milton – join a legacy of destruction, from Katrina and Maria to Harvey, Michael, and beyond.

Our hearts know this pain well. Many of us at NCRP currently live or have roots in the south. We know the headlines, photos, and texts from friends and loved ones can feel overwhelming: they come too fast, and not fast enough. We also know the road to rebirth and recovery will be long.

Resources:

Leaders Urge Philanthropy to Provide Sustainable Support Before, During and After Election Years

 

Fall 2024 Issue of NCRP’s online journal, Responsive Philanthropy confronts philanthropy’s role in getting us to the tumultuous times we live in and what is needed now to move forward well beyond this election year to secure a safe and just democracy for all.

Washington, DC – With the 2024 United States presidential election just mere weeks away comes the real question – will our democracy survive its outcome? Regardless of what happens at the national and state levels, what is philanthropy’s next step?

In this Fall 2024 Issue of Responsive Philanthropy, we hear firsthand the perspectives of movement leaders, organizers, and funders and gain insights on the missteps of philanthropy, lessons learned in real time and visions for the path forward. The recent publication from this 48-year-old philanthropic advocacy organization features intersectional essays from Forward Through Ferguson’s Annissa McCaskill and Jia Lian Yang, People’s Action Institute Sulma Arias, Climate Justice Alliance’s KD Chavez, Fund to Build Grassroots Power’s Denise Collazo, PowerSwitch Action’s Lauren Jacobs, WE ACT for Environmental Justice’s Peggy Shepard, Proteus Fund’s Rana Elmir, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s Katherine Ponce, and Funders for LGBTQ Issues’ Rye Young. The featured artist for this issue of Responsive Philanthropy is Los Angeles-based visual artist Gregg Chadwick.

“Funders should be supporting year-round civic engagement and democracy efforts – not just in election cycles – and move more money faster and earlier like the All by April campaign did earlier this year,” says NCRP’s Vice President & Chief External Affairs Officer Russell Roybal. “It’s impossible to hold on to progress if funding delays require organizations to completely restart their work every other year.”

 

Democracy Needs Support All Year Around During All Cycles

This fall issue of NCRP’s journal encourages grantmakers to prioritize funding democracy movement groups, not just funding candidate campaigns. It reminds its readers that communities of color, queer communities, impacted communities are often the ones doing the work on the ground to move the country forward. They have the knowledge and insights but without real sustainable support, their work and by effect democracy will be delayed.

As Forward Through Ferguson’s Annissa McCaskill and Jia Lian Yang write, we cannot continue with business as usual or maintain the status quo as a sector if we want to move forward as a nation. “Why are we more often reactionary, rather than proactive in our philanthropy? Why is philanthropy that empowers the disenfranchised most often a response to crisis, rather than the basis of a new, improved approach to resourcing organizations and initiatives? Why, after the crisis simmers down, can we not sit in the real discomfort that we feel, the tension between the world we live in and the one we aim to create?”

 

INSIDE THE FALL DEMOCRACY ISSUE

The following articles and all past issues of Responsive Philanthropy are available at no cost on NCRP’s website ncrp.org:

10 years after Ferguson: How philanthropy can bridge funding gaps for Black and brown-led organizations

Forward Through Ferguson’s Annissa McCaskill and Jia Lian Yang reflect on this year’s 10-year anniversary of murder of Michael Brown Jr. and The Ferguson Uprising in Ferguson, Missouri. The authors recount how philanthropy reacted then (2014) and how it is reacting now (2024) to funding disparities in Black and brown-led organizations.

5 lessons learned about trust-based philanthropy

In this collaborative piece People’s Action Institute Sulma Arias, Climate Justice Alliance’s KD Chavez, Fund to Build Grassroots Power’s Denise Collazo, PowerSwitch Action’s Lauren Jacobs, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice’s Peggy Shepard center Black and brown voices and utilize the values and principles of feminist leadership in their work funding grassroots power.

A clarion call: How attacks on U.S. Palestinian solidarity movements undermine our democracy

Proteus Fund’s Rana Elmir draws the parallel between the inadequate funding behavior for Black, African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian movement groups post 9/11 and the current attacks on Palestinian solidarity movements.

The philanthropic strategies and networks attacking our democracy

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s Katherine Ponce utilizes research, data points and history to showcase just how right-wing nonprofits have built a strong network that are currently attacking our democracy and what progressive movements can learn from their strategy.

First trans rights, then all rights

Funders for LGBTQ Issues’ Rye Young pushes back against philanthropy’s complicity with far-right advances. Young specifically focuses in on how heightened attacks on LGBTQ+ communities have impacted democracy and its very function.

The Fall 2024 Issue of Responsive Philanthropy is one of many ways in which NCRP and its allies are supporting movement groups that are working to build a just and equitable multiracial democracy. The organization’s most recent research brief focuses on what grantmakers should be doing about the skyrocketing costs of voter registration and civic engagement work.

“When its all said and done, funders can play a key role in addressing obstacles that hinder civic and voter participation throughout the year and across all election cycles,” says NCRP’s President and CEO Aaron Dorfman. “Deeper and bolder multi-year investments can not only help groups manage the current moment of crisis, but also create the kind of long-term stability that helps protect democracy and grow opportunities for all.”

 

ABOUT NCRP 

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has served as philanthropy’s critical friend and independent watchdog since 1976. We work with foundations, nonprofits, social justice movements and other leaders to ensure that the sector is transparent with, and accountable to, those with the least wealth, power, and opportunity in American society.

Our storytelling, advocacy and research efforts, in partnership with grantees, help funders fulfill their moral and practical duty to build, share and wield economic resources and power to serve public purposes in pursuit of justice.

Together, we can create a just and equitable world where all communities get the resources they need to thrive.

 

CONTACT(S):  Russell Roybal rroybal@ncrp.org 
                              Elbert Garcia, egarcia@ncrp.org

Three Climate, Voting Rights, and Economic Social Justice Leaders
Join the Board of Directors of National Committee for
Responsive Philanthropy

Mayra Aguirre, Christine Cordero, and OJ Semans, Sr., bring their personal and professional experience
 on movements and power building at a crucial time for the organization and philanthropy.

Mayra Aguirre, Christine Cordero, and OJ Semans, Sr., join the Board of Directors of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) begins another fiscal year of challenging grantmakers to be more responsive to the communities they serve by welcoming three nonprofit and foundation leaders as members of its Board of Directors.

The 48-year-old DC-based philanthropic advocacy group announced this week that Mayra Aguirre (President of the Hall Family Foundation), Christine Cordero (Asian Pacific Environmental Network – APEN) and OJ Semans, Sr., (Four Directions Native Vote) had joined the board effective October 1.

“We are honored and excited to welcome these leaders into the work that we are doing at NCRP,” said Board Chair and Missouri Foundation for Health President and CEO Dr. Dwayne Proctor. “Their energy, expertise, and ideas are key to helping the Board sustainably continue the work of not just holding philanthropy accountable to communities they are built to serve, but also providing movement groups the economic resources and social capital that they need to address the urgent issues of our time, including climate change, reproductive access and racial justice.”

Dr. Proctor continues to serve as the head of an Executive Committee that includes Daayiah Bilal-Threats (National Education Association) as Vice Chair, Don Ragona (Native American Rights Fund) as Secretary, Molly Schultz Hafid (Butler Family Fund) as Treasurer, and Farhad Ibrahimi (Solidaire Network) as the At-Large member. Rounding out the rest of the Board are Jeanine Abrams McLean (Fair Count), Sharon Alpert (Bold Strategy Collective), Sarita Gupta (The Ford Foundation), Nana Gyamfi (Black Alliance for Just Immigration), Lorella Praeli (Community Change), Michael Roberts (First Nations Development Institute), (Jocelyn Sargent (American Medical Association for Health Equity), Joe Scantlebury (Living Cities), Pamela Shifman (Democracy Alliance) and Eric Ward (Race Forward)

A Critical Upcoming Year for the Organization and the Sector

As the Board welcomed Aguirre, Cordero and Semans, it also said goodbye to two longtime members who saw their time conclude because of term limits. Rev. Dr. Starsky Wilson, a former Board Chair and current President and CEO of the Children’s Defense Fund, leaves a legacy of steady action that saw him guide the Board through several internal and external moments, including implementing 2016’s strategic framework and responding to both COVID and the death of George Floyd.

“The Reverend Dr. Wilson led NCRP as board chair for 6 years with his principled leadership and commitment to making the philanthropic sector a more democratic place. Starsky’s impact on NCRP will continue well into its future, “ said Proctor.

Also stepping down after years of service is longtime economic and racial justice leader Bill Dempsey. Dempsey, who has worked as Chief Financial Officer at nonprofits like SEIU and funders like the Nathan Cummings Foundation, has spent a career helping to manage innovative social change organizations that empower low-income families and working-class communities.

“Bill Dempsey is a role model for how to work in partnership,” said NCRP Board Vice-Chair and Senior Director for Education Policy at the National Education Association Daaiyah Bilal-Threats. “His generosity of spirt, resources, and knowledge is one I will miss on the NCRP board, but I know he will still be a supportive force for our work and workers no matter where he is…because that’s who Bill is. ”

This upcoming fiscal year is an important one for philanthropy’s longtime watchdog and critical friend. Externally, progressive nonprofits continue to navigate an even more crowded and competitive fundraising environment that is seeing donor interests shrink from key issues and shift towards new ones. While the outsized influence of the ultra-wealthy has increased calls for greater federal reform and regulation of some of the sector’s longstanding financial behavior and structure, extreme right-wing led regressive philanthropic investments are curtailing fundamental civil and human rights protections that are key to realizing an inclusive democracy.

Internally, the organization is embarking on a visioning process that looks to produce NCRP’s next strategic framework. The most recent one, adopted in 2017, is set to expire just before the organization’s 50th anniversary in 2026.

“A future where we all benefit from an equitable and just multiracial democracy depends on having a constantly learning and improving philanthropic sector that builds, wields and shares power with local communities,” said NCRP President and CEO Aaron Dorfman. “That requires grantmakers who are transparent and accountable to their grantees and organizations like NCRP who are well-resourced to persuade and — when necessary – pressure friends to do the right thing.”

 

For a full list of the current NCRP Board of Directors,
visit the NCRP website at http://ncrp.org//our-team/#board.

 

ABOUT NCRP

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has served as philanthropy’s critical friend and independent watchdog since 1976. We work with foundations, non-profits, social justice movements and other leaders to ensure that the sector is transparent with, and accountable to, those with the least wealth, power and opportunity in American society.

Our storytelling, advocacy, and research efforts, in partnership with grantees, help funders fulfill their moral and practical duty to build, share, and wield economic resources and power to serve public purposes in pursuit of justice.

MORE ABOUT NEW DIRECTORS

Mayra Aguirre
President
Hall Family Foundation

Mayra Aguirre is an empathetic leader, community advocate, and dedicated visionary in the community development and philanthropic sectors. The daughter of immigrants raised in Emporia, KS, the first-generation Latinx college graduate has dedicated her career to collaborating with the communities around her, and leading change in a way that recognizes, appreciates, and listens to the voices of those individuals most connected to the community’s challenges.

Since 2020, Mayra has served as President of the Hall Family Foundation, a private philanthropic organization dedicated to enhancing the quality of human life in the Greater Kansas City area. Before serving her community as a steward of the Hall Family Foundation, Mayra shared her time and talents as a senior program officer at the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation, Executive Director of the Greater Kansas City Hispanic Development Fund (HDF), and a coordinator at Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)’s Metropolitan Council on Early Learning. She currently sits on the boards of the Greater KC Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Development Fund, and KC2026 World Cup.

Christine Cordero
Co-Director
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)

Raised by a Filipino immigrant family in the working-class town of Pittsburg, CA, Christine acts from the deep belief that we are stronger together and can go farther together than we ever could alone. She is Co-Director of Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), organizing with immigrants and refugees for a healthy environment and thriving economy for all communities.

For over 20 years, Christine strategized, organized, and built coalitions across environmental health and justice, workers rights, and economic and racial justice issues. Previously, she was Executive Director at the Center for Story-based Strategy, training 2,000+ people and working with 200+ groups to reinvigorate narrative strategies for social justice. She is an alumnus of Rockwood Institute’s Leading from the Inside Out Yearlong Fellowship, one of the nation’s leading executive leadership programs for experienced social change trailblazers. She is one of three recipients of Stanford University Centers for Equity, Community, and Leadership’s 2023 Changemaker Award. Christine is an ordained priest of the Chozen-ji line of Rinzai Zen, and trains in Oakland, CA and Kalihi Valley, HI.

OJ Semans, Sr., 
Co-Executive Director
Four Directions Native Vote

OJ Semans, Sr., is the Co-Executive Director, Four Directions Native Vote along with his wife Barbara Semans (Dillon). Four Directions Native vote is a non-partisan voting rights advocacy organization that has successfully litigated Federal Voting Rights Lawsuits on Montana, Nevada and South Dakota working with Tribes and Tribal members.

Both OJ and Barb received their Honorary Doctorate Degrees from Clairmont Graduate University, are members of the Sicangu Oyate and have 7 children.

As Chairman of the Rosebud Economic Development Corporation an entity of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, OJ’s work involves meeting with Congress, Federal Agencies, Profit & Non-Profit Corporations and Tribes throughout the United States. OJ is also the Executive Director of the Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT), a group whose mission is to protect the Treaties and Sovereignty of Large Land Based Tribes and to work with the United States government on funding, legislation, economic development.