If you were a foundation president with one $50,000 grant left to give before your fiscal year ended, which of these three nonprofit executive directors would you fund?
Executive Director #1 wants to end human trafficking, establish safe houses for victims and help survivors start new lives.
Since childhood, she has been a victim of violence and human trafficking, which some conjecture resulted in her mental delay. She has a history of breaking the law, but she was never convicted. She married a violent man and left him. She is illiterate. For years, she has been unable to keep a domestic service job. Chronically nervous, she never stays in one town for more than a few months.
Executive Director #2 wants to improve patient mortality rates in war-torn countries, create national and international health care reform and establish nursing schools for women in developing countries.
With a reputation for being radical, outspoken, rash and ill-adored, she opposes current public health programs. She’s an immigrant with very few connections in the United States. She has no experience fundraising.
Executive Director #3 wants to improve women’s rights and demand women’s suffrage in her developing country.
She houses outlaws, keeps company with radicals, suffers from a chronic illness that often makes her bedridden and (until recently) has been a homemaker with eight kids.
Which of these three executive directors would you trust with your final grant? Each comes with a high risk, but what if you had foresight to see the end result?
Executive Director #1 is Harriet Tubman, who engineered and led the Underground Railroad during one of the darkest times in American history.
Executive Director #2 is Florence Nightingale, who inspired The Red Cross – arguably the first nonprofit organization – when the U.S. was still a developing country.
Executive Director #3 is Lucretia Mott, a suffragette who successfully advocated for women’s right to vote.
History affords us perspective that grantmakers rarely have when making funding decisions. Tubman, Nightingale and Mott were the edgy, controversial community organizers of their day, and now, they are synonymous with justice, bravery, human rights and leadership. All three once represented risky investments for foundations.
But that risk – on a whole different scale – is shouldered by these three individuals. For Tubman, failure would have meant imprisonment, violence and death. For Nightingale, failure would have resulted in prolonged and deeper suffering for the sick and wounded she dedicated her life to serving. For Mott and her fellow suffragettes, failure would have equated continued, gagged silence and no political self-determination for half the population of the United States. Moreover, if these three women had failed and not influenced other leaders, what would our lives lack today? Risk, is relative.
So, let’s consider all sides of risk and then ask ourselves: Is philanthropy creating fertile ground for the next set of innovative, entrepreneurial and courageous leaders? If not, what should grantmakers do differently?
What Does Philanthropy Seldom Fund?
Consider some important data about trends in grantmaking, and whether these practices are creating opportunities for the next potential Tubman, Nightingale and Mott. NCRP used Foundation Center data to look at key trends among the 1,100 largest foundations in the Philanthropic Landscape Fact Sheets series. Here are three key findings:
- 89 percent of the 1,100 largest foundations give zero multi-year grants. However, true partnership includes shared risk, spread as evenly as possible among partners. How much success would Nightingale have had, if she only had one year to prove success for what would came to be one of the largest nonprofits in the world?
- The median foundation share for general operating support among the 1,100 largest foundations is only 7 percent. Would Mott have been able to mobilize so many women today without the resources for rent and salaries?
- The median share of grants allocated to social justice causes remains at 2 percent. How many Harriet Tubmans of today are competing for that 2 percent?
In light of these trends, would Tubman, Nightingale or Mott receive a grant today? Probably not. Yet, if they did, it most likely would be a one-year, program grant with very little, if any, general operating support.
Changing the Relationship
My aim is not to make anyone feel guilty. On the contrary, I aim to encourage and excite the professionals in the philanthropic sector to challenge our assumptions. We face gargantuan societal problems, which eclipse our limited resources and time. Unlike these problems, the way we approach the grant application process is in our control. We can choose to treat nonprofit executive directors as nominal partners, effectively contractors hired to help foundations achieve their missions. Or we can treat nonprofit executive directors as true partners, with whom we share risks, burdens, victories and – with grace and levity – discuss the uneven nonprofit-funder power dynamic.
One of my favorite quotes is by Mary Jones: “My job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Given the trends, increasing multi-year grants, general operating support and social justice funding will certainly be uncomfortable for many in the sector. However, if these practices can better support leaders like Tubman, Nightingale and Mott, what’s stopping us?
Christine Reeves is senior field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.
Leave a Reply