Back Donate
Donate

Given the discriminatory rhetoric that has set the stage for our incoming presidential administration, our sector needs to articulate the need for justice and increase our support of social movement leaders.

This year I wrote two blog posts (“Dear white folks in philanthropy: My ‘Miley, what’s good?’ moment” and “Philanthropy: Let’s Talk About Race, Baby”) on how philanthropy needs to address racial bias and inequity more explicitly. To do this well, sector leaders can prepare by engaging in trainings that provide safe spaces for vulnerable conversations about structural racism. Read on for two exemplars and the impact they’ve had on my evolving understanding of race and racism as a white person.

Many of you have heard about the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers (WRAG) learning series Putting Racism on the Table, which convened foundation trustees and CEOs from the Washington, D.C., area. I attended four of the six three-hour sessions earlier this year, among 40-50 other attendees. WRAG’s program is an excellent model for sector groups and funders who want to effectively leverage their bully pulpit.

Content-wise, the series’ discussion topics included structural racism, white privilege, implicit bias, mass incarceration and racial demographics. All of the speakers addressed how philanthropy can address racial inequity in the U.S. context, and an expert facilitator made space for small and large group discussions before and after the presentations.

I honed my understanding of race and racism and how to talk about it in philanthropy, especially by hearing reactions and questions from the audience and the presenters’ responses.

As follow-up to the featured speaker sessions, WRAG organized a series of three-hour trainings to support implementation. Each was limited to 25 participants, but was open to all foundation staff.

The second WRAG training I participated in took place this month and explored how to communicate about race with white family, friends and colleagues – timely with this year’s post-election holidays.

Led by two white facilitators, Nancy Brown-Jamison of White Men as Full Diversity Partners and Dr. Mark Chesler, a professor at the University of Michigan, we created not only a “safe” space, but a “brave” space to ask and share things we normally wouldn’t.

We discussed conditions that hinder and help learning about racism; worked in small groups to share experiences as bystanders, targets/victims, perpetrators/agents and interrupters/interveners in instances of racism; and talked about what often works and doesn’t work when engaging other white people on the topic.

Another option that is available across the country is the Undoing Racism workshop with the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond (PISAB). I attended the two-day training this summer alongside 40 staff members from direct service, research and advocacy nonprofits in DC.

The facilitators were incredibly skilled and sensitive, and there were many opportunities to share stories and get to know others in the room. We discussed all the systems touched by racism in the U.S. context, including: philanthropy; how racism keeps “white on top” and acts as “feet of oppression” on communities of color; shared childhood messages or lessons that internalized racial inferiority and superiority in our lives; reviewed the history of “affirmative action for whites” throughout U.S. history; and learned about how community organizing is the key to undoing racism.

A review of key definitions also helped guide our conversations. In fact, the part of the workshop where we defined “race” completely changed my understanding of racism and what we’re up against when we talk about “undoing” it or “putting it on the table.”

With both the WRAG and PISAB gatherings, group guidelines were important in setting the stage for shared language, confidentiality and leaning into discomfort. The intentionality and expertise brought to these trainings made them milestones in my professional and personal development.

I encourage you, particularly white foundation staff and board members, to participate in such opportunities or take the initiative to organize them yourselves. No matter where you are in the country or in your learning journey, an intention for 2017 to sign up for a training that delves into race and racism will empower your organization, and our sector, to lead well during the challenges that lie ahead.

Caitlin Duffy is senior associate for learning and engagement at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) and a member of the Board of Instigators of the Diverse City Fund in Washington, D.C. Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter.

Image by Elvert Barnes, used under Creative Commons license.

You may remember last year’s controversy between Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus. In response to being excluded from nominations for a Video Music Awards category, Minaj expressed public critique on Twitter about double-standards and racial bias in the industry.

As host of the 2015 VMAs, Cyrus took the opportunity to critique the artist in an interview: “What I read sounded very Nicki Minaj, which, if you know Nicki Minaj is not too kind. It’s not very polite. I think there’s a way you speak to people with openness and love.” The next day, while accepting an award on stage, Minaj turned to a surprised Cyrus and pointedly asked, “Miley, what’s good?”

Minaj later explained her response, stating, “If you want to enjoy [Black] culture and our lifestyle, bond with us, dance with us, have fun with us, twerk with us, rap with us, then you should also want to know what affects us, what is bothering us, what we feel is unfair to us.”

Cyrus was clearly uncomfortable with Minaj’s rage. Whether the hip-hop artist was attempting to change the industry, shame specific people, vent her own frustration and anger or heighten awareness, her refusal to be polite was a necessary political statement.

I was reminded of this exchange when I read Rodney Foxworth’s recent post “The Need for Black Rage in Philanthropy.” Foxworth compels white philanthropists to embrace a sense of moral urgency, writing that philanthropy should “lean into the impatience and rage that simmers throughout Black America” in order to advance change.

Before we can lean into another’s righteous anger with urgency, it’s necessary to face our own discomfort. As a white person, I’ve struggled with discomfort in the face of anger from people of color. Robin DiAngelo writes that white people in North America are largely insulated from race-based stress, and that challenges to our racial worldviews and social norms can be very unsettling. But as Foxworth rightly asserts, Black rage is an appropriate response to the level of injustice our societies face, and white folks like me need to work through our fragility in the face of our colleagues’ anger. Lives depend on it.

My prior reactions to Black rage have been marked by defensiveness and frustration with what I perceived as over generalizations about white people. For example, two years ago I wrote a personal blog post titled, “To my fellow social justice activists and friends of color.” Among the sentiments I shared were:

“Your frustration and anger with an unfair and oppressive system are justified, and your experiences are valid. To defend yourself and amplify your voice, at times harsh words and even violent reactions are required. Yet to those in my network I ask … Please do not generalize and make sweeping statements about ‘whites’ in a disparaging manner when criticizing unjust societal structures and institutions, considering that there are many people who look like me and who stand in solidarity with you. I recognize that I cannot fully participate in your struggle, but I can’t help but feel that the energy that is expressed behind such attitudes smacks of stereotyping and exclusion, which is antithetical to the advancement of struggles for equality and justice.”

Looking back, my post was laden with a discomfort with Black rage and my own white privilege in trying to control discourse. Minaj wasn’t there to call me out, but a white friend reached out to me. She wisely wrote, “Not being defensive, and internalizing what is or could be true about what people of color are saying that is different from my current perspective, is an important practice for me as a white ally. I really try not to seek affirmation of my rightness as an ally when I’ve recently been called out, especially affirmation by people of color.” Unfortunately I deflected her offer to meet and discuss it, though I’ve since thanked her and can only wish that I had been more open to hearing her advice at the time.

Especially as white people working in philanthropy, we might get racism caught in our teeth during a panel, or a presentation at a conference, or a conversation with a colleague. I sure had some white privilege caught in mine when I wrote my self-righteous post. It’s impossible to separate the personal from the professional when it comes to implicit bias.

White people in philanthropy, embrace discomfort and avoid defensiveness in your own “Miley, what’s good?” moments to truly listen and learn. I detailed why it’s important to do so in another NCRP blog post entitled “Philanthropy: Let’s Talk About Race, Baby.”

With growing dialogue in the sector around race and racial justice, I’m emboldened to share my cringe-worthy experience, and I do so with the hopes of challenging you to be more open about your own learning journey.

When have you experienced or observed white discomfort with Black rage in philanthropy?

Caitlin Duffy is senior associate for learning and engagement at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter.

Image by Philip Nelson, Live Streaming Expert, modified under Creative Commons license.

Adapted from The Oregon Community Foundation – Can it Build a Statewide Legacy of Equity and Inclusion?

Earlier this year, The Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) approved a $300,000, seven-year loan to support Albina Opportunities Corporation (AOC). AOC offers financing to small businesses owned by women, people of color, immigrants and persons with disabilities in Portland. Among the endeavors funded by AOC is Escuela Viva Community School, founded by Portland mother Angie Garcia for her own daughter. “I was looking for a program that would nurture her spirit and provide a bilingual environment. The truth is that I just couldn’t find it. So I started this.”

The demand for the school’s dual language programming became so great that by 2010, Escuela Viva required quick capital to set up a new center and consolidate its three locations. AOC’s former executive director, Terry Brandt, observed, “Not only does [Escuela Viva] provide children with a unique educational opportunity, but it has created and will sustain living wage rate jobs in our community.”

This type of impact investing can generate a measurable social or environmental impact alongside financial return by providing capital to companies, organizations and funds. Clara Miller, president of F.B. Heron Foundation, has written that 21st-century funders must “go beyond marginal and auxiliary philanthropy (the traditional and appropriate model for charity) to engage actively with the whole economy, positioning ourselves to be fully engaged for mission both inside the foundation and outside in the economy.”

Compared with other philanthropies, community foundations face special challenges in place-based impact investing due to their unique structures, limited discretionary dollars and donor mandates. NCRP’s foundation assessment initiative, Philamplify, recently explored how the Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) became a proactive leader in this space.

In 2013, Mission Investors Exchange profiled OCF for investing one-half of 1 percent of its $1.3 billion endowment, or approximately $6.5 million, in Oregon-based early-stage investment funds such as the Oregon Angel Fund. As the foundation’s endowment grows, so does the amount of investment in early stage growth companies and start-ups. OCF reported that the current total is roughly $8 million, of which $7 million has been deployed to date.

To strengthen the foundation’s capacity to meet its mission, including its strategic focus on economic vitality in Oregon, OCF launched an impact investment program in 2014. Among its efforts, the foundation has sponsored studies about Oregon’s capital ecosystem, and provided loans and grants to help develop a skilled workforce and build the state’s post-recession economy. The program uses discretionary grant money to make program-related investments (PRIs), including $3 million allotted by the foundation’s board several years ago. It will be fully deployed this year, and the board plans to discuss potential future allocations.

To help move capital to rural Oregon businesses, in 2014 OCF invested $1 million in Craft3, a regional nonprofit community-development financial institution (CDFI). Craft3 provides low-interest loans to entrepreneurs and small-business owners who are unable to access traditional credit, including EcoTrust, which used a $1.3 million short-term loan from Craft3 and a grant from OCF in 2014 to purchase and permanently protect a coastal estuary in Northern Oregon.

The community foundation also partnered with Meyer Memorial Trust, a leader in mission-related investing in Oregon and southwest Washington. OCF committed $2 million to the partnership to provide low-interest loans to Oregon nonprofits. Other support includes a loan to the Portland Seed Fund, a company accelerator that provides capital, mentoring and connections; and capacity building grants to AOC, the CDFI that helped Angie Garcia grow Escuela Viva.

The Democracy Collaborative featured OCF as one of 30 innovative community foundations from across the country for its work with AOC, Craft3 and Meyer.

Behind the scenes, OCF offers a Socially Responsive Investment Fund to its donors and nonprofit endowment partners to screen out investments inconsistent with their values and “invest in companies that have strong records in the areas of corporate governance, community relations, diversity and employee relations, energy and the environment, product quality and safety, and non-U.S. operations.”

In an interview for NCRP’s assessment, Elizabeth Carey, vice president and chief financial officer, shared that OCF is discussing avenues such as fossil fuel divestment, but sees an opportunity to do more with proxy votes and “activist investing.” She said: “One of our managers was invested in a Norway company that was actively considering whether to drill in tar sands, and invested so they could vote to block that. They brought up proxy votes to keep the company from going in that direction and blocked that. [If we divest], we don’t get a say in what companies do. We have had positive impacts for companies that would have made bad environmental decisions.”

OCF shows a clear commitment to economically vibrant communities across the state, and its strategic plan for 2015-2018 outlines a goal to continue this work and “allocate well-targeted impact investments, evaluating their outcomes and priority within OCF’s overall mission.” OCF can build on this commitment by dedicating more staff resources to the program, and increasing the proportion of its endowment allotted for impact investments, especially investments that advance its equity goals, like Escuela Viva.

Caitlin Duffy is senior associate for learning and engagement at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), and co-author of “Oregon Community Foundation – Can it Build a Statewide Legacy of Equity and Inclusion?” Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Images by Michael Silberstein, van Ort and Eli Duke. Modified under Creative Commons license.

What is the role of a community foundation as a public leader? Lorie Slutsky, president of the New York Community Trust, believes,

“The role of a community foundation is to understand the problems and be a place that will stick with those things that need to be stuck with, build the capacity of critical neighborhood anchor institutions over time and leave the door open so new problems identified by new populations and challenges still have a place to go and be heard.”

Community foundations are quick to point out how different they are from private foundations. As public charities firmly rooted in place – be it a city, county, region or state – they must respond to dynamically changing environments for residents, nonprofits and donors alike. In New York City, Slutsky considers the Trust the “ultimate niche grantmaker” – distinct from its peers.

As the third-largest community foundation in the U.S., and after 95 years of operations, it indeed has a storied history. Philamplify, NCRP’s foundation assessment initiative, recently examined the Trust’s goals, strategies and practices from the past three years. The stakeholder feedback and findings lifted up in the report present valuable lessons for community philanthropy.

Our assessment analyzed how the Trust exercises public leadership to elevate and advance community goals, including the extent to which it:

  • Leverages its reputation and expertise.
  • Takes risks and innovates.
  • Convenes and mobilizes stakeholders.
  • Works across issues and funding silos.
  • Collaborates with other funders.

The Trust was rated highly on many of these measures by grantees, peer funders, nonprofits and other stakeholders. For example, the foundation initiates collaborations with other grantmakers and partners with government agencies in New York City to achieve its goals.  It was one of the first funders to tackle the AIDS crisis in the 1980s; this month it announced $550,000 in grants to combat Islamophobia.

The Trust prefers to leverage its reputation quietly and is known for a “purposefully understated” leadership style. Patricia Jenny, vice president of grants, explained,

“We actually don’t use the bully pulpit that much. Really because of the style of our president and the importance of maintaining some neutrality so that discussions can be had welcoming all perspectives. We think of ourselves as a venue for bringing together city and state government, private philanthropy and nonprofits.”

The Trust’s emphasis on “neutrality” may inhibit its impact; the Trust is reluctant to engage in direct advocacy and mobilization, which frustrates some of its constituents. Moreover, it has not effectively articulated an overarching, comprehensive vision for New York City and the communities it seeks to benefit. In fact, a third of interviewed stakeholders expressed confusion about what the Trust stands for. Illustrative of this feedback, one person commented,

“I don’t have a really concrete sense of what [the Trust is] holistically trying to accomplish with their grantmaking. They have different categories but if they have donors giving to them and competing with DAFs, how are they influencing what donors are giving to? And then how do they harness that to be able to grant to a lot of different organizations? I know they have different categories, but I don’t have a sense of what they’re really trying to accomplish. I can’t say the Trust does ‘X.’”

According to its website, the Trust’s mandate is “to make the City a vital place in which to live and work for all New Yorkers.” While the foundation’s reports and newsletters regularly feature justice and equity issues, oddly the Trust has no vision, values, or equity, diversity and inclusion statement to affirm these priorities. The Trust’s grantmaking and publications show dedication to issues of equity, so why is it hesitant to name its values? Does the Trust’s leadership style and interest in remaining “neutral” inhibit its ability to become a bolder advocate for the issues it cares about?

Our report recommends that the Trust “explicitly articulate a unifying vision and values statement for an equitable city,” and “improve communications tools, including the website, to more effectively convey how the Trust’s goals and strategies align with its vision and values.”

When a foundation clearly states its vision and values, it helps communicate how its myriad strategies are working toward community goals and systemic change. Place-based funders such as the California Community Foundation, Denver Foundation and Minneapolis Foundation openly name their priorities and the importance of equity and justice for their communities. This clear statement undergirds their public voice as advocates for that vision.

What do you think should be included in the Trust’s vision and values statement for New York City? Tell us in the comments below or share on social media by tagging @NYCommTrust and #Philamplify!

Caitlin Duffy is the project associate for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

With more and more evidence of the effectiveness and impact of social justice philanthropy – which works toward solving society’s problems at their source – new language is emerging to describe systems change strategies. The phrase “social justice” can hold clear ideological connotations, and with growing political divides, funders with broad audiences may seek more “neutral” language.

Yet given the complexity of systems and power, coupled with the polarized environment of race relations in the United States, I think it is necessary for us to address white privilege and the history of oppression of people of color. Recent events and social movements, political candidates and longstanding injustices show that philanthropy and the organizations that serve the sector can no longer shy away from the topic of racism and other -isms.

That is why NCRP believes that strategic philanthropy is social justice philanthropy. Our research has consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of social justice philanthropy in advancing equity. Through our annual Impact Awards, we have highlighted the work of the Hill-Snowdon Foundation and others as exemplars for social justice philanthropy, with a clear commitment to grantmaking for racial equity and grassroots movement building. Citing the North Star Fund and Resource Generation as inspiration, Hill-Snowdon developed its Making Black Lives Matter Initiative to begin building long-term institutional and political power for Black social change and racial justice.

What caused me to reflect on the differences in how funders respond to current movements and public debates surrounding race was a new resource guide by Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO), which encompasses the elements of social justice philanthropy but names it “Systems Grantmaking.” GEO introduces “systems grantmaking” not as a new approach, but as an existing way to “influence the bigger picture in all its complexity.”

In reading the guide, I was reminded of my colleague Andy Carroll, who has written extensively about “changemaking foundations” and “catalytic funders” among Exponent Philanthropy’s members, which he characterizes by many of the hallmarks of social justice philanthropy: risk-taking, community engagement, policy advocacy, convening and bold leadership beyond the distribution of grants. Indeed, in a blog post for NCRP he wrote, “Social justice funding is changemaking, and changemaking is a form of philanthropic leadership.”

Both examples are indicative of the burgeoning conversations about philanthropy for change on a systematic or structural level; but how does such an approach differ from social justice philanthropy?

I’ll call it like it is: race.

Sector infrastructure groups have wide membership and may steer clear of activities they deem divisive, but by avoiding these difficult conversations they risk applying their leadership in ways that reinforce the problem. If philanthropy trains its champions to be public leaders but not responsive to issues of race, we can make the issue worse.

I realize that in certain cases, using explicit racial equity language may not be the most effective approach. People from communities that have experienced violent racial tension can be triggered by language associated with past trauma, making it more inflammatory than constructive. For example, in Words Matter: Language and Social Justice Funding in the US South, Grantmakers for Southern Progress found that many Southern funders use more muted, nuanced language to garner trust and avoid negative connotations.

That said, there are a number of affinity groups that have chosen to address race explicitly – going beyond coded language such as “inequality” or “lack of diversity.” For example, the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers (WRAG) is hosting Putting Racism on the Table, a learning series that I have attended on behalf of the Diverse City Fund. WRAG’s president, Tamara Copeland, recently shared why Nonprofits Need to Talk About Race, Not Just Diversity in The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

I would like to challenge all sectoral organizations that care about racial inequity to stretch beyond any conscious or unconscious fear they may have of disturbing their white peers’ discomfort and talk more explicitly about structural racism. If they don’t, the risk is that some foundations may try to embrace systemic change approaches while lacking tools or motivation to undertake the hard work of addressing racial inequity, white privilege and implicit bias.

To build on the frameworks produced by GEO and Exponent Philanthropy, grantmakers can look to the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity, Grant Craft and Funders for Justice for valuable resources on how to combat institutional and structural racism. In 2014, The Foundation Review dedicated a volume to racial equity, and last year NCRP held a popular webinar on how foundations can best support the movement for racial equity. Organizations such as the Interaction Institute for Social Change (IISC), VISIONS, Race Forward and the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond also offer strong trainings.

As a white person on my own learning journey, I encourage white leaders to promote racial justice by following these five steps offered by NCRP’s executive director, Aaron Dorfman, and to learn about the organizing and educational work being done by Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) across the country.

We cannot afford to skirt the issue of race because of fear or discomfort. From slavery and the plantation economy, to Birmingham and Selma in the 1960s, to Ferguson and Charleston today, people of color are dying because of the color of their skin. So philanthropy, let’s talk about race.

Caitlin Duffy is the project associate for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Image by Marc Wathleu, modified under Creative Commons license.

For over two decades, community organizing has been a central tool in the New York Community Trust’s strategy to improve the accessibility and quality of public education in New York City. From 2012 to 2014, the Trust allocated $10.7 million in grants to make public schools effective for all students and to build a broad constituency in support of public education by funding efforts that strengthen the involvement of citizen groups, particularly parents. In doing so, the foundation found the sweet spot in implementing a program that combines a commitment to equity with resident-led systems change.

The Mexican American Student Association (Masa), a small grassroots organization that works closely with its South Bronx and Mott Haven communities on education and immigrant issues, is a NYCT grantee. As Aracelis Lucero, executive director of the organization, explained:

“Our work has been empowering and engaging families. We can’t really work alone. There is a huge fight and a lot will be required to move the needle forward for community issues through direct services, getting them involved in education and helping them be better equipped in tackling the issues from a local perspective. … What we’ve done is provide education support from as early on as possible to college and beyond. We engage parents; we focus on children and youth but our entry point and the way we engage is in a very holistic family support and community support.”

One of the ways in which Masa engages families is through parent committees that provide space for parents to voice concerns, share knowledge and best practices to support each other, and to engage in larger community issues. For example, a group of parents felt they were not being welcomed to a charter school’s PTA. They also faced a language barrier to participating. Masa assisted the parents by recommending strategies to address the problem and by helping them voice their concerns to the charter school’s board. As a result, parent involvement improved in the school.

One parent in particular who took language classes at Masa was able to speak at a press conference at City Hall to talk about the difficulties of participating in the PTA. Lucero noted:

“We have people who couldn’t even dream of being part of the committee and she is now part of it. … There has been a huge transformation in how she expresses herself. Before, she wouldn’t talk in parent meetings and now she is much more open and is really driving the conversation and creating the agenda to talk about. That’s a huge transformation.”

Similarly, through its youth committee, Masa is empowering the younger generation to become leaders and advocates in the community. “Youth have been really key to building trust with the community and to driving what has been happening,” said Lucero. “The organization grew from a four-person staff to 18. Of the 18 staff, 14 of them are young adults who are pretty much children of immigrants or immigrants themselves who are running Masa right now. Everyone is from the community or has grown up in the community.”

On working with the Trust, Lucero praises its staff for providing honest feedback and for supporting grassroots organizations:

“I appreciate the work they’re doing to include grassroots organizations. … We needed people who would take a chance on us. … NYCT was one of the earlier partners, along with New York Foundation, to believe in Masa’s work, see what we were doing at the grassroots level and recognize the potential. …One of the things that I appreciate beyond the support and taking a chance to believe in us is that [the Trust] also provided very honest feedback at each point of our development. I appreciate that; when you are growing you want to be told what you could be doing better and make meaningful changes to help you grow.”

Lisa Ranghelli is director of foundation assessment and Caitlin Duffy is project associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Together they authored the Philamplify report on the New York Community Trust. Follow @DuffyinDC and @NCRP on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Image courtesy of Masa.

We know you’re anxious to read our forthcoming Philamplify reports on the Kresge Foundation and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation this fall, but in the meantime I have some news to appease your curiosity.

After nine comprehensive assessments of private, independent grantmakers from across the country, Philamplify is ready to deliver honest feedback to community foundations! We’ve chosen the first two, and both are collaborating with NCRP in the process.

In preparation, we’ve spent the past ten months adapting our methodology and strategic, social justice criteria to assess community foundations, incorporating input from 20 sector experts and field leaders. Changes include a revamped survey instrument for grantees and new criteria to assess relationships with donors. Furthermore, while we’ll continue to research each foundation’s goals, strategies, outcomes and impact, we’ve expanded our focus beyond grantmaking to more closely analyze each anchor institution’s asset development and public leadership.

This is an exciting evolution for our Philamplify initiative, but did you know that this won’t be the first time NCRP has assessed community foundations?

In 1989, NCRP published its first study of six of the nation’s largest community foundations. The cohort included urban grantmakers in Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Seattle, Atlanta and Los Angeles. Between 1991 and 1995, NCRP added Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver and San Diego to the bunch as part of our Community Foundation Responsiveness Project, and published more detailed reports examining these ten foundations. True to our roots, the assessments analyzed each foundation’s responsiveness to low-income and other historically marginalized groups.

The summary report was uncompromisingly forthright:

“The low level of support awarded to community organizing, public policy initiatives, issue advocacy or institutional reform activities suggest that community foundations do not consider social action to be a social good. …

“The community foundations studied here similarly displayed considerable reluctance to fund organizations controlled by disenfranchised people. This strongly suggests that the popular portrayal of community foundations as cutting edge philanthropic institutions is largely exaggerated.”

In fact, the Denver Foundation took a courageous shift in strategy following our evaluation of its grantmaking in order to emphasize work in low-income neighborhoods. Today the Denver Foundation lists leadership, equity, inclusiveness, accountability and anti-discrimination as its core values, and holds true to an ongoing commitment to “reducing disparities and promoting equity for the most vulnerable members of our community, including people living in poverty, immigrants and refugees, and people of color.”

What will NCRP find this round? And how will the philanthropic sector react?

As with past Philamplify assessments, we took the same approach for deciding which funders to assess, and chose two of the nation’s largest community foundations: The New York Community Trust and The Oregon Community Foundation. We are thrilled that the executive leadership at both foundations recognize the value of Philamplify and have chosen to collaborate with us.

Located in one of the world’s most recognizable cities, The New York Community Trust will be the first “philamplified” community foundation. Ranked among the top ten for both assets and giving by Foundation Center, in 2013 The Trust held $2.4 billion and awarded over $144 million. Across the country, serving both rural and urban communities statewide, is The Oregon Community Foundation, with $1.7 billion in assets and $66 million in giving.

We’re excited to build on our history with community foundations and lift up actionable feedback from philanthropic peers, nonprofits, grantees and donors.

Do you have knowledge or insight to help inform our assessments? We want to hear from you! Contact me at cduffy@ncrp.org or (202) 387-9177 x31 to confidentially share your understanding of either community foundation. If not, tell us which grantmakers we should philamplify next!

Caitlin Duffy is the project associate for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Freda, Sharnette and Gary. I interacted more with these three Post Office workers than our entire team did with the Hess Foundation over the last ten months.

I remember their names from last September, when I tried to track down a lost letter that we had sent to the elusive Hess Foundation, an $800 million institution based in Roseland, New Jersey. It was one of our multiple attempts to engage with the grantmaker for Philamplify, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s (NCRP) initiative to bring honest feedback to improve philanthropy. Our foundation assessments, which rely on grantee feedback, are conducted with or without foundation participation. However, transparency is a growing trend in today’s philanthropic sector, and each of the foundations we’ve assessed has participated in some capacity. All except the Hess Foundation.

The Hess Foundation does not have a website or any other direct contact information. After phone calls and emails to the trustees through their other organizational affiliations failed, we resorted to snail mail. Weeks passed and we heard nothing from the foundation after sending our first letter. We sent a second letter through certified mail, with a return receipt to track whether it had been received. Strangely, the Post Office could not confirm whether the envelope had been delivered, despite the safeguards we purchased and the two claims we filed for the lost mail. No response. Was the Hess Foundation’s address a black hole?

While numerous Hess Foundation grantees were happy to talk to us, our many requests for interviews with the foundation’s board members and other stakeholders with direct knowledge of the family’s grantmaking have been blatantly ignored. This includes our attempts to get in touch with the foundation’s accounting firm, CohnReznick, which shares its mailing address with the foundation. We also sent certified, return receipt requested copies of NCRP’s draft report to publicly available addresses for four of the foundation’s five long-time trustees. While we did receive confirmations of delivery from the Post Office, the foundation’s silence continued.

In a last ditch attempt, NCRP Executive Director Aaron Dorfman headed north to try and speak with the foundation’s representatives in person. Our videographer documented his journey in the Garden State and the Big Apple. Aaron was turned away at CohnReznick and Hess Corporate, and no one would answer the door at one trustee’s consulting firm.

It’s because of cases like this that David Callahan at Inside Philanthropy calls the sector a “black box.”

Our experience with the foundation is not unique. In our report on the Hess Foundation, author Elizabeth Myrick writes that this “unresponsiveness correlates with feedback from long-time grantees and well-connected peers who described the foundation as mysterious and invisible.”

The Hess Foundation exemplifies a transactional grantmaking approach known as “checkbook philanthropy.” Compared to the other foundations NCRP has examined for Philamplify, this style “represents the bare minimum in terms of philanthropic strategy, transparency, payout and impact.” The grantmaker has no online presence, employs no staff, nor engages in philanthropic associations in the tristate area. Its relationships with grantees are comparable to those of an individual donor, despite being an institution with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets.

After all of this, you may ask: Why is it important that the foundation respond? I previously dedicated a blog post to the significance of transparency in philanthropy, but here are three more reasons that the Hess Foundation should be less insular:

  1. The Hess Foundation, and the charitable lead trust that sustains it, receive enormous tax breaks. The foundation has a responsibility to let the public know what it is doing as stewards of tax-exempt resources – what NCRP refers to as partially-public dollars. It gave out nearly $30 million dollars in 2013, but we know nothing of its goals or strategy.
  2. Our assessment found that Hess Foundation grantees are eager to grow a relationship with the foundation, with particular interest in increased communication, dialogue and partnership with its leaders.
  3. In order to maximize its potential and that of its grantees, the Hess Foundation should pursue strategic impact. NCRP’s Philamplify report presents a unique opportunity for the foundation to receive constructive stakeholder feedback and begin a dialogue.

To embrace NCRP’s recommendations, the Hess Foundation doesn’t have to look far for support and inspiration. I recently attended an event at Exponent Philanthropy – an outstanding organizational resource for foundations like Hess with few to no staff – to hear a talk by Anne Gunsteens, executive director of the J. Willard and Alice S. Marriott Foundation, a $630 million grantmaking institution also funded by the success of a corporate empire. She shared how her staff has grown from one to five during her tenure, and that the foundation’s first website is in the works. These strides made by the Marriott Foundation stand in stark contrast our findings on the Hess Foundation.

There may be good intentions behind the Hess Foundation’s lack of transparency – perhaps the trustees are keeping operations lean to direct more money to grants, or to keep the spotlight on its grantees. Nonetheless, such good intentions are not necessarily good grantmaking, and the foundation must move beyond checkbook philanthropy to amplify its impact and that of its grantees. Check out our report and the accompanying video, and tell us what you think!

Caitlin Duffy is the project associate for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

If you’re a coffee lover, you’ve likely enjoyed beans cultivated by farmers from a fair trade worker cooperative. If you haven’t yet, sip a delicious brew of fair trade coffee in the spirit of this past Saturday’s World Fair Trade Day, which celebrates fair trade as a “tangible contribution to the fight against poverty and exploitation, climate change and the economic crisis that has the greatest impact on the world’s most vulnerable populations.”

When fair trade comes to my mind, instead of coffee and other ethically-sourced products, the first thing I associate it with is worker cooperatives – defined by the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives as “business entities that are owned and controlled by their members.” Whether rural or urban, philanthropy can look to worker cooperatives as a way to reduce poverty and inequality, empower workers and anchor jobs and wealth in a community.

Here are six reasons why foundations need to consider investing in worker cooperatives as a way to ensure that their grantmaking and investment dollars benefit underserved communities:

1. Worker cooperatives help build resilient local communities. The Democracy at Work Institute writes that worker cooperatives are “an effective tool for creating and maintaining sustainable, dignified jobs; generating wealth; improving the quality of life of workers; and promoting community and local economic development, particularly for people who lack access to business ownership or even sustainable work options.” With the cooperative model, women, immigrants, economically disadvantaged and historically marginalized racial communities have the potential to overcome barriers that limit their economic opportunities. In March, Truthout reported on the benefits of worker cooperatives for low-income women.

2. Cooperatives are found in practically every industry. The Democracy at Work Institute recently conducted an analysis of the field and found cooperatives in nearly every sector of the economy, concentrated in manufacturing, retail, food, administration/waste management and professional services. This past week Grist reported on the growth of agriculture cooperatives in the U.S., including well-known companies such as Ocean Spray, Organic Valley and Sunkist. As a local example, Takoma Park, MD is home to a food co-op and a cooperative nursery school. There are likely democratically-run businesses in your community, including credit unions!

3. There is potential to scale. Last year, the Democracy Collaborative – whose executive director, Ted Howard, helped launch the Evergreen Cooperatives and the Metropolitan Washington Community Wealth Building Initiative – released Worker Cooperatives: Pathways to Scale. The report shares how allies such as foundations can help grow worker-owned business in the U.S. by catalyzing more investment to build infrastructure and capacity, developing a friendlier ecosystem for cooperatives and increasing available capital through grants, loans and equity.

4. Investment in worker cooperatives amplifies impact beyond grantmaking. Foundations make mission (or impact) investments to achieve their philanthropic goals and generate both a social and a financial return. Mission Investors Exchange writes that “foundations of all types and sizes make mission investments in order to make capital more available to initiatives and enterprises that will create positive benefits for the communities they serve.” A worker cooperative is a clear example of an impactful investment that enables local workers to access the wealth they create.

5. Cities are already doing this work. Last summer, New York City allotted $1.2 million for the development of worker-owned cooperative businesses in 2015. Inspired by New York City, the city of Madison, Wisconsin will invest $5 million in worker cooperatives over the next five years. Foundations can partner with cities and local governments to provide funding, resources and policy advocacy.

6. Foundations are already doing this work. Most notably, the Cleveland Foundation, an NCRP Philanthropy’s Promise signatory, partnered with local grantmakers, banks and the municipal government to seed a revolving loan fund for Evergreen Cooperatives, a coordinated network of employee-owned enterprises that launched in 2008. Evergreen Cooperatives has been so successful that it is now referred to as the Cleveland Model. The Surdna Foundation, through its Strong Local Economies program, supports alternative business models such as employee-owned cooperatives to benefit “communities that have been most impacted by inequitable economic policy,” such as people of color, women and immigrants. In addition, in 2011 the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers convened local foundations and supported a feasibility study for an initiative similar to the Cleveland Model. They were instrumental in founding the Metropolitan Washington Community Wealth Building Initiative, which incorporated its first worker-owned business last year.

The Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers will be holding a briefing about the impact and vision of the Community Wealth Building Initiative on May 18 – register here to learn more. While you’re at it, sign up for a webinar on May 20 to learn more about the Next System Project and join a broader conversation on new economic institutions and approaches for systemic change.

Foundations can bring new resources, expertise and business opportunities to this burgeoning field. What are other success stories and reasons to support worker cooperatives? How does your foundation leverage its philanthropic capital?

Caitlin Duffy is the project associate for Philamplify at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.