Back Donate
Donate

Working in NCRP’s communications department, I know how difficult it is to get mainstream news outlets to cover philanthropy. It’s not a sexy topic, and many in the general public probably think of foundations as “those organizations that fund NPR and PBS.” Unless the story is a scandal involving a major party presidential candidate, news organizations outside of the philanthropic press usually pass on it.

But podcasting is that rare medium that lacks such gatekeepers. Anyone with a microphone and a recording device can create a podcast about any subject, even topics as niche as philanthropy and nonprofits.

As podcasting continues to ride its nearly two-year-long renaissance, NCRP Executive Director Aaron Dorfman recently appeared on two podcasts tackling such topics: the self-explanatory For Small Nonprofits and Tiny Spark, a show about “philanthropy, nonprofits, international aid and social good initiatives.”

On For Small Nonprofits, Aaron and host Erik Hanberg discussed the complicated relationships between foundations and nonprofits. “Fundraising from foundations is far less about writing the proposal than it is about doing great work and having relationships,” Aaron said when asked about applying for grants. “There is no substitute for the relationships to move the money. And that is hard for small nonprofits, and it’s especially hard for rural nonprofits, who just aren’t at events where the funders are at.”

Aaron and Tiny Spark host Amy Costello talked about The Giving Pledge and why he has concerns about it. “Generally speaking, the rich give to things that benefit themselves and their social standing,” he said. “[The Giving Pledge] is only about giving it away for something. But, the ‘for what’ has not, to this point, been part of The Giving Pledge. And that’s a big concern.”

Do you have a favorite philanthropy podcast? Tell us about it in the comments or share it with us on Twitter @NCRP.

Peter Haldis is a communications associate at NCRP.

 

 

Update 5/6/2016: We’ve uploaded new photos on Facebook!

You know the feeling that washes over you when you hear something that moves you so much it gives you goosebumps?

I had that feeling last night during the 2016 NCRP Impact Awards reception held in honor of Consumer Health Foundation, Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, Patagonia and Sandler Foundation.

“Bold commitment to fighting inequality and injustice” was the common theme at last night’s gathering of foundation and nonprofit leaders from the Twin Cities and across the country.

“To the 2016 NCRP Impact Awardees, I am grateful for the work you are doing,” said Congressman Keith Ellison, who serves Minneapolis’ 5th district, during his keynote. “Not since the Great Depression has the work that you are doing been as absolutely urgent and necessary as it is now.” Ellison highlighted the fight for climate change, health care for low-income immigrant workers and racial justice as examples of the critical issues that communities are facing today.

Amid the congratulatory clapping and cheers, the awardees offered stirring messages about commitment to the issues and communities they care about, partnerships and investing in leaders who are leading the fight against injustice.

In a prerecorded message, Steve Daetz, executive vice president of the Sandler Foundation, which received the award for a grantmaking public charity, invited foundation executives to give more flexible grants for nonprofits to have lasting impact on addressing the needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.

“At the end of the day, it is nonprofit leaders who are the experts and agents of change, not [grantmakers],” said Daetz. “So we want to empower these leaders to use flexible funds in ways that are most important to their organizations.”

The Sandler Foundation, which is based in San Francisco, California, provided critical seed funding to help launch organizations like Center for American Progress, ProPublica and Center for Responsible Lending.

Patagonia’s Alex Ubbelohde stressed the importance of grassroots groups in the fight for environmental justice in the U.S. and abroad.

“For us, often, these are the communities we live and do business in, and these groups are doing the difficult work of cleaning up the environment, working within their community to find creative solutions to divisive issues, and fighting for greater access and better conditions for all people,” said Ubbelohde, who manages Patagonia’s retail store in St. Paul.

Patagonia, which received the award for its corporate philanthropy, is a certified B-Corporation in Ventura, California, that manufactures high-end outdoor clothing and gear. It has contributed $76 million in cash and in-kind donations to thousands of community-based groups in support of environmental activism since 1972.

Consumer Health Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., supports efforts that advance the well-being of low-income communities and communities of color in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Yanique Redwood, the foundation’s president and CEO, expressed her pride in leading a foundation that is committed to “pushing the boundaries” in addressing racial equity, economic justice and other factors that affect health outcomes.

“As a new board member tells it, he joined CHF because he heard we were running into the burning building when others were running out,” shared Redwood. “We plan to continue in this spirit until everyone in our region is not only safely away from danger but enjoying a healthy and dignified life.” The foundation is the awardee for the small/midsized foundation category.

The recipient of this year’s award for a large private foundation is Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund in San Francisco, California. Sylvia Yee, vice president of programs, reflected on what philanthropy at its best looks like.

“Philanthropy is at its best when we make it possible for everyone to dream bigger about the world that we all want to live in … to dream about things that we can achieve only by working together and to take on tough intractable issues that others are reluctant to take on,” said Yee. “Philanthropy is really about the opportunity we have to help lift aspirations. It’s about giving people long-term support to be bold. It’s keeping the faith through inevitable losses and helping folks regroup and to pivot when needed. It’s about leadership that can cross fault lines of race or class and communities to achieve transformative change.”

The Haas, Jr. Fund was the first grantmaker to make marriage equality a priority. Along with its continued support of the marriage equality movement, the foundation is also a leading supporter of efforts on immigrant rights and education equity in San Francisco.

In his closing remarks, NCRP’s Aaron Dorfman quoted the late Sen. Paul Wellstone to challenge the nonprofit and foundation leaders who attended the event to empower grassroots communities, especially the underserved.

“Paul said, ‘What the poor, the weak and the inarticulate desperately require is power, organization and a sense of identity and purpose, not the rarified advice of political scientists,’” noted Dorfman.

Our special thanks to Grantmakers for Effective Organizations for allowing us to hold the reception in conjunction with their national conference.

We also are deeply grateful to members of our Host Committee members who helped make this a successful event: Kelly Drummer, Tiwahe Foundation; Trista Harris, Minnesota Council on Foundations; Sarah Eagle Heart, Native Americans in Philanthropy; Saanii Hernandez, Women’s Foundation of Minnesota; Mary Jane Melendez, General Mills Foundation; David Nicholson, Headwaters Foundation for Justice; Trina Olson, PFund Foundation; Jon Pratt, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits; Lee Roper-Batker, Women’s Foundation of Minnesota; Kevin Walker, Northwest Area Foundation; and Kate Wolford, The McKnight Foundation.

Here are a few photos from the event. We’re adding more in the next few days so keep checking our Facebook page.

And finally, thank you to all who joined us at the reception! What were your favorite moments? Please tag and share photos from the reception. We’d love to see the photos you took: Send us a link, tweet or post on Facebook using the hashtag #NCRPImpactAwards16.

Yna C. Moore is communications director of NCRP. Follow @ynamoore and @NCRP on Twitter.

This post first appeared on the National Center for Family Philanthropy’s blog, Family Giving News, on January 26, 2016.

Foundations seemed so mysterious to me when I started my career in nonprofits.

At the time, back in 1993, I was a novice grantwriter for a tiny Seattle organization called Treehouse. As a young professional just getting started in the field, I was eager to learn as much as possible. I spent countless hours researching guidelines and putting my newly minted English degree to use writing as many proposals as I could.

It should come as no surprise that I learned quite a bit about the foundation world. But as I look back on that experience, there was one proposal that stood out — and that guides how I approach my work today as a foundation leader.

During my research, I had discovered a foundation that seemed like a perfect match for Treehouse’s Little Wishes program, a program that paid for things that every child deserves such as school pictures, Boys & Girls Club memberships and sports fees.

I thought it was a promising sign when I heard from the foundation’s program officer, who agreed that we may have a fit, although she told me that her foundation wouldn’t pay for staffing. Since I hadn’t included any of my time or our executive director’s time in the budget, I wasn’t sure what she meant. It turned out that she didn’t even want to acknowledge the Little Wishes Program Coordinator in the program budget.

I was scared to contradict a funder, so I revised the budget to only include the funding that directly paid for children’s needs and activities — even though there was no way the program could run without the coordinator. In the end, after an onerous application process that took a lot of my time, we didn’t even get the grant.

That was the first time that I truly realized the importance of general operating support: unrestricted funding that organizations can apply to any part of their organization.

If every funder only pays for a specific program or a specific line item, an organization becomes fragmented and unstable. Without general operating support, an organization doesn’t have the money for staffing, rent, technology, training, or even the phone bill. And, without a strong infrastructure, programs that improve our communities can’t happen.

Not Yet the Norm

While there has been increasing recognition of the importance of funding general operating support, it is not yet the norm.

Various surveys show general operating support accounts for between 20-25 percent of grantmaking, although that number seems to be gradually increasing. It helps that the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, the Nonprofit Finance Fund, the Center for Effective Philanthropy and many other leaders in the field have identified unrestricted funding as a best practice.

There are promising signs of change on both sides of the funding equation.

Several foundations are shifting their funding. Most notably, the Ford Foundation announced last year that it will strive to double the total it gives in general operating support to 40 percent of its grantmaking budget. Ford — with a grantmaking budget of more than $500 million a year — is making a powerful statement that will hopefully inspire other foundations.

Nonprofit leaders, meanwhile, are also raising their voices on this issue. While I stood silent as a professional working at Treehouse, today’s leaders are starting to speak up about the great need for unrestricted funding. Vu Le, a Seattle nonprofit leader, has received national recognition for his humorous, spot-on blog that contains several posts about this issue.

Yet with all of this momentum, why does general operating support still account for only a relative fraction of all grantmaking?

I believe it is primarily because foundations want to understand and quantify their own impact. By earmarking dollars to a specific program, many foundations hope to draw a line from the dollars they give to the outcomes nonprofits achieve.

But grants are often too small to cause a measurable outcome. Philanthropy Northwest’s six-state Trends in Northwest Giving Report has shown that the median grant size has been under $10,000 since it first began reporting on regional grantmaking in 2004. That means organizations need to piece multiple funding sources together to pay for their programs, and that also means that one foundation can’t take the credit.

This piecemeal approach threatens the health of nonprofits. One Seattle-based organization, Solid Ground, provides shelter, food, transportation and other basic services annually to over 60,000 people in need. It has an annual budget of about $23.5 million, of which 80 percent is government funded. All of that government funding is restricted, which is not unusual. To supplement that funding, Solid Ground wrote 104 requests to foundations in 2015, and only 9 of those were for unrestricted dollars.

One can quickly see the great challenges this presents. The amount of writing, reporting and matching specific dollars to specific programs takes staff time away from the important work of their mission. There is no guarantee that each program will get fully funded, and a lack of unrestricted dollars prevents an organization from responding to the changing needs that they see firsthand.

A Grantmaker’s Perspective

Since 2003, I have worked for the Medina Foundation, a Seattle-based family foundation founded in 1947.

We grant about $4 million a year to local organizations addressing homelessness, education, hunger, and other basic needs. Fortunately, I’ve never had to make the case for general operating funding because it is something the board has always understood and believed in. This may have something to do with our founder, Norton Clapp, a businessman who knew that you need a strong infrastructure to succeed in business, and that this must carry over to the nonprofit sector.

In an excerpt from his writing over 40 years ago, he said that he wanted Medina funds to “be directed to improve the quality of organizations and their management and their operations so that their own resources would be used more effectively.”

In 2015, 72 percent of Medina’s grant dollars were for general operating support. Some organizations still ask us to fund a capital campaign or a program that they need matching dollars to support, but I envision that 72 percent increasing based on what we hear from our grantees. Over and over, organizations tell us that unrestricted support allows them to be innovative, meet the community’s needs as they shift, and help them operate more effectively.

I asked Medina Foundation Board President, Piper Henry-Keller, why she thinks unrestricted support is so ingrained in the strategy of the Foundation. Here’s what she had to say:

“Organizations that are doing the work are the experts. They are the ones who see the needs and know what could be done. We don’t feel that it is our role to dictate. We rely on our staff to find organizations that are doing good work, and then we put our trust in those organizations. It’s important to trust organizations enough to give them the freedom to accomplish their mission in the way that works best for them.”

It’s important to know that giving general operating grants doesn’t mean giving up on outcomes. We do a lot of work on the front end of a grant: reading proposals, going on site visits, meeting with executive directors and board members, reviewing financials and, ideally, seeing a program in action. We look for strong leadership, a clear mission that aligns with ours, and effective programs that are truly meeting the needs of a community. We support organizations that engage in thoughtful planning around financials, goals and outcomes.

If we make a grant, it’s because we believe in the organization and we want to see the same outcomes they want to see. But we always need to remember that we are investing in their work, not ours.

Of course we want to make a difference. But it can’t be at the expense of the health of the organization. We ask for final reports from our grantees and when we learn that a tutoring program helped 62 percent of its students gain one or more grade levels in reading; a food program distributed 15.3 million pounds of food to feed 1.4 million people; a housing program moved 352 formerly homeless families into permanent homes; and a domestic violence program responded to 10,364 calls from survivors, we know that we helped with those outcomes in some way.

We contributed to them; we can’t take credit for them. And, unless we are fully funding the work, that has to be enough.

Jennifer Teunon is executive director of the Medina Foundation.

It’s that time of year again. No, I’m not talking about fiery fall leaves or pumpkin pies, though I love those. I’m talking about The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s “Philanthropy 400.” For the uninitiated, this list represents the 400 U.S. nonprofits that raised the most (non-governmental) money in fiscal year 2014.

There’s a lot of good work included here. The Task Force for Global Health is in the top ten. Youth programs, cancer research and a score of universities populate the top 50. Dig into the latter hundreds and you’ll find organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund and the ACLU.

Yet here’s a truth givers of all stripes should know: Some of the most important work you can support today has never been on that list. The vital work I’m referring to takes many forms, and many causes, but it always has a few things in common.

It’s grounded in community. It’s unapologetically focused on changing the policies, cultural norms and systems that foster inequity. And it’s led by people who have faced the brunt of that injustice. At NCRP, we call them grassroots social justice advocates and community organizers: folks who are fighting every day, against all odds, for a better world for all of us. Yet despite their crucial work – or rather because of it – the vast majority are un- or underpaid.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for a wholesale rejection of the 400: simply a counterweight. The top 400 groups have increased their share of total annual giving over the last decade to about $1 for every $3.70 donated in America. This isn’t surprising. Large organizations tend to have greater capacity to promote their work, measure the outcomes and assign staff to collect donations. But such abilities are privileges that many organizations working alongside marginalized communities and tackling difficult topics simply don’t have.

So without further ado, here are seven ways givers can support grassroots efforts all across the country tackling the most entrenched injustices in our society. Many of these tips come from recommendations Black Lives Matter activists shared in a NCRP webinar earlier this year.

  • Support the leadership of people most affected by the issues they’re trying to solve. Though it’s vastly underfunded, the most cutting edge work today is being done by intersectional movements of people standing up to oppression. That includes people of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, undocumented persons, low-income individuals, people with disabilities and the formerly incarcerated.
  • Recognize that these efforts may look different than standard ways of doing things in the nonprofit sector – and that’s okay! Traditional nonprofit spaces can be inaccessible or downright alienating for people who have been disenfranchised. The Movement for Black Lives, for example, has no annual fundraising galas, rigid hierarchy or even a physical office space, but has fundamentally transformed our national conversation around race, justice and policing.
  • Remember that civic engagement is the bedrock of effective social change. From community organizing and policy advocacy to litigation and leadership development, it focuses on changing the systems of power that lock people out of opportunity, rather than chipping away at their byproducts. This work is 100 percent legal for nonprofits, as the Alliance for Justice’s Philanthropy Advocacy Playbook It’s also messy and courageous. Listen, and be willing to support new and untested ideas.
  • Give multi-year funding and general operating support. (Yes, that means overhead.) Such funds give leaders the stability and flexibility they need to act nimbly and strategically. Disappointingly, however, only 22 percent of the donors The Chronicle of Philanthropy surveyed prefer to support long-term goals. In fact, according to NCRP’s analysis of Foundation Center data through our “The Philanthropic Landscape” series, only 21 percent of all grant dollars in 2012 went to general operating support, and just 13 percent to multi-year funding.
  • Don’t get obsessed with number crunching. It’s notoriously difficult to quantify the value of advocacy, even though it’s the most effective long-term work you can engage in. When NCRP did measure, we found that the return on investment for advocacy and civic engagement was a whopping $115 for every $1 invested. Many groups allied with marginalized communities, however, aren’t going to have the capacity to show those numbers, and privileging the ones that can perpetuates a vicious cycle that keeps those communities under-resourced.
  • If you have an application process, keep it simple. Does the organization applying have to fill out 10 questions, five forms, three budgets and speak English fluently to have a chance to access the funds? If so, rethink the process.
  • Last but not least, remember that support can be more than financial. You can help make a difference by speaking out for equity, educating your peers and holding people accountable within the institutions and relationships you are a part of. For examples, check out the nearly 200 funders that have made that commitment explicit by signing on to Philanthropy’s Promise.

What do you think? How else can donors, grantmakers, and giving circles best support grassroots social change efforts? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Ben Barge is a field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

CC image by Chris Blakeley.

Ten years ago, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans, causing unprecedented devastation made all the worse by an infamously inadequate response from the federal government. I was living in Miami at the time, and the eye of Katrina actually passed right over my house when it was still a relatively weak Category 1 storm. After it crossed Florida and entered the Gulf of Mexico, Katrina strengthened and began its march north. I’m sure we all remember being glued to the television as we watched the ordeal unfold. In the midst of this crisis, many in the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors came together to provide immediate relief and begin the process of rebuilding.

In the cover story of the new summer issue of Responsive Philanthropy, Albert Ruesga, executive director of the Greater New Orleans Foundation, reflects on the hurricane’s anniversary in “Philanthropy’s Response to Katrina: A 10-Year Perspective.” In addition to spotlighting the excellent grantmaking that helped make recovery possible, Albert thoughtfully ruminates on the tough questions that still must be answered about social inequality’s continued role in worse life conditions for many in our country.

Next, Douglas Bitonti Stewart, executive director of the Max M. and Marjorie S. Fisher Foundation, explores the importance of community involvement in “Going Further Together: Collective Learning for Impact.” Douglas uses the example of his foundation’s work in early childhood education in Detroit’s Brightmoor neighborhood to discuss how the intended beneficiaries of philanthropy are necessary participants at every level of planning and execution.

Finally, in “Shortcomings of Modern Strategic Philanthropy and How to Overcome Them,” the Insight Center’s Henry A. J. Ramos explores how an obsession with metrics inhibits structural change. Henry offers three recommendations for how foundations can best invest in the communities they serve and align efforts for long-term impacts.

Our Member Spotlight looks at the Ford Foundation, which rocked the sector with a recent open letter declaring its commitment to battling inequality and increasing general operating support.

As always, we hope Responsive Philanthropy is a useful resource for everyone in philanthropy. We are always trying to improve – let us know how we’re doing at readers@ncrp.org.

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Located in rural Ashfield, MA, Double Edge Theatre describes its work as “creating a ‘living culture’ by developing the highest quality of original theatre performance – based on artists’ interaction with the communities in which the work takes place.”

While maintaining a permanent center of performance, training, research and cultural exchange in western Massachusetts, Double Edge travels throughout the United States, South America and Europe, residing in communities for several weeks. The company works with residents, including local artists and tradespeople, to integrate the community and its history into each performance.

Double Edge’s goal is to elevate both artistic expression and the relationship between artists and their communities. This approach starts with their work in Ashfield. Each summer, the Theatre hosts educational programs for emerging artists, indoor and outdoor performances, community events and international artistic exchange. It was just as important for the program to become embedded in the community of their hometown as in their traveling programs. Double Edge knows first-hand that rural communities especially can be skeptical of, and even resistant to, arts and artists arriving on the scene and seeking connections. Yet residents came to see the value of the organization’s investment in their town, and it now enjoys tremendous local support, selling out its summer performances. Arts organization like this one are especially important in rural America, which is often overlooked by philanthropy.

Between 2010 and 2012, Double Edge received three annual grants from Hess totaling $18,000, with an additional $50,000 over the next two years focused on operations and infrastructure. Working at the nexus of arts, culture and community and offering both local and traveling programs, engagement of public schools and promotion of diverse performance and visual artists, Double Edge both aligns and contrasts with Hess Foundation’s arts and culture portfolio. Although Hess primarily funds large arts and cultural institutions, foundation board member Constance (Hess) Williams discovered Double Edge in Washington, D.C. when the group landed at Arena Stage, a prominent theater with a mission to produce “diverse and innovative works from around the country and nurture new plays.”

Williams met with Double Edge to discuss a possible grant, ultimately resulting in Hess’ investment in, “a distinct initiative to address Double Edge’s growth management, including support for a consultant to help us with board development and strategic planning.” According to actor, writer and co-artistic director Matthew Glassman, this project has proven critical to the organization’s sustainability. Moreover, the support targeted an area of nonprofit management that is too often ignored by most funders: organizational development and strategic planning. Glassman said:

“The fact is few other foundations … were able to help us deal with the issue of growth. If it had not been for the type of grant Hess gave us, our own growth, based on our good work, could have overwhelmed us. Hess support gave us the gift of time to focus on the business of growth, the development of our board, to hire strategic consultants. It has been vital as we have reimagined our scaffolding. … Where can an organization go when it is actually effecting change in the community, and really growing and succeeding but it is not clear how to grow and respond to success well?”

Hess Foundation support for Double Edge Theatre resulted from a bit of luck as well as both parties’ understanding of the challenges arts and culture organizations face when growing. Beyond the grant, the Hess Foundation has requested very little in terms of reporting or follow-up. Glassman notes, however, that he reports regularly on his own: “There hasn’t been a time that they’ve asked for more [information]. Given how impactful this grant has been for us, my reporting is pretty thorough.”

The relationship between Double Edge Theatre and Hess Foundation represents the best of Hess Foundation’s grantmaking, offering funding at the right time, in the right size and toward the right focus. However, examples like this, while promising, throw the Hess Foundation’s unrealized potential into stark relief. Much more common, in fact, are large unrestricted grants to established and elite institutions. By supporting the status quo, the more typical Hess grants, which go to institutions such as Harvard College and New York’s Museum of Modern Art, may or may not result in increased access or innovative connections between communities and the arts.

The Hess Foundation clearly recognizes the need for unrestricted grants for nonprofits to survive. Building off of lessons learned from Double Edge, Hess has the opportunity to be more responsive to the communities it serves, not just elite institutions. NCRP’s assessment of the foundation recommends that Hess include peers and grantees in the decision-making process to better envision the systemic impact it can have, especially among marginalized communities. The foundation would also benefit if it were to engage and learn alongside these grantees and to share what is learned with nonprofit and philanthropic peers. Strong, community-focused organizations attracting the support they need to sustain their missions is a success story for philanthropy and one from which foundations, first and foremost the Hess Foundation itself, can learn.

Elizabeth Myrick is an independent consultant with nearly 20 years of experience in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. She has served as principal researcher on NCRP’s Hess Foundation and Woodruff Foundation Philamplify reports.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy on March 13, 2015.

Since last summer, a movement has been brewing in response to the police killings of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others. People across the country have taken to the streets, demanding changes in policies that contribute to government-sanctioned violence against African- Americans and Latinos.

People of color are leading this movement, as they should be, but they shouldn’t be expected to move this agenda forward by themselves. White people working in philanthropy are an important source of funding for nonprofits helping to organize on-the-ground efforts across the country, but it is essential that they take an active role, too. The future of our nation depends on our building a society that ensures everyone has an opportunity to thrive, regardless of race. Philanthropy has an important role to play in the coming months and years to help the movement bring about lasting progress.

Here are five simple steps that white leaders can take to promote racial justice:

Become educated about the issues. The burden of teaching you more about the realities of racial inequity does not lie with friends and colleagues who are not white. A plethora of research and information exists to help deepen understanding of the issues of race, including resources from Race Forward and the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity.

If you’re not voraciously and regularly reading pieces written by people who aren’t white, you’re missing out. African-American columnists like Charles Blow of The New York Times and commentators like Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic are two of my favorites.

Another way to educate yourself is to attend conference sessions and webinars designed by and focused on people of color. Too often, the annual dinner and lecture sponsored by the Association of Black Foundation Executives has perhaps only one or two white people in the room. The lecture is always fantastic, and it’s outrageous that so few white people attend. Incidentally, conference sessions about women or LGBTQ issues similarly have few, if any, straight white men in the room. This has to change. Go, listen, and learn.

Link racial justice to your foundation’s mission. No matter what issues your foundation is working to address, it’s likely that there is a connection to racial justice. It’s essential that you understand that connection and make it explicit. Engage board members in that discussion. Don’t put the burden of initiating this conversation on the people of color on your staff or board.

Hire and promote blacks, Hispanics, and other people of color for staff and trustee positions.

The latest data suggest that 16.5 percent of foundation trustees, 7.1 percent of foundation CEOs, and 15.4 percent of other full-time executive staff members at foundations are people of color. There are signs of improvement in these numbers, but the pace of change is glacial, and the record in philanthropy lags behind national trends.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonwhites made up 34 percent of the total U.S. labor force in 2012.

There are no good excuses for not actively seeking out talented people of color for top leadership roles. It’s been proven that greater diversity in groups leads to better decisions, especially in response to the kind of complex problems that foundations wrestle with every day. The D5 Coalition has research, a self-assessment tool, and other resources that can be helpful for any foundation that wants to diversify.

Building a diverse team of staff and trustees isn’t sufficient, however.

Foundations must also create inclusive environments to maintain diversity.

The Exit Interview by Association of Black Foundation Executives, shows how black professionals in philanthropy often feel isolated and excluded from growth opportunities. The Denver Foundation’s Inclusiveness Project offers a step-by-step guide for building an organization that is diverse and tolerant of differences.

Take a stand. One of the most important things you can do is put your personal reputation and your institution’s reputational capital on the line while standing strong for policies that promote racial justice.

The hard truth is that powerful white people often listen to other powerful white people. When you stand with grass-roots leaders of color without trying to speak for them or stealing their voice, you help them get heard.

It may not always be easy to speak truth to power in primarily white communities. It might be easier to do nothing. But the white clergy who marched at Selma offer a powerful example of why complacency should not be an option. You probably won’t have to do anything nearly as difficult, so what are you afraid of?

Provide unrestricted long-term support to grass-roots organizing groups. Offering flexible aid to organizing groups pushing for racial justice is perhaps the most important thing grant makers can do.

Foundation leaders believe they are more than just the purse that holds the money. But how you give money away and to whom you give it matters immensely. Foundations often want to control the agenda, but movement building starts by letting go and allowing communities and the nonprofits that serve them to determine what’s best.

Role models abound. The Hill-Snowdon Foundation provided critical funding that resulted in minimum-wage increases in two Maryland counties and the District of Columbia. The Woods Fund Chicago and the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation provided funding that resulted in expanded rights for immigrants in Illinois and Vermont. NoVo Foundation grantees helped secure an extension of the Violence Against Women Act. The California Endowment played a role in the passage and adoption of the Affordable Care Act, thereby expanding access to health care for millions.

Those are just a few examples of what is possible when foundations invest for the long term in grass-roots organizing.

This fight for racial justice is not a flash-in-the-pan moment. It’s a movement. Serious systemic change is a possibility. If you’re a white person working in philanthropy and you say you’re in favor of racial equity but then do nothing, you’re a hypocrite. It’s time to decide: What role will you play?

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

At one end of the spectrum, grantmaking is a transaction, in which there is little connection between the grantmaker and the grantee beyond the exchange of forms, reports and funds. At the other end, grantmaking is relational, with grantmakers and grantees acting as collaborative partners in the amelioration of social ills. But to establish this form of partnership, both the grantmaker and the grantee must confront the power dynamics that characterize the traditional funder-nonprofit hierarchy. These conversations are sticky and uncomfortable, but if carried out, can greatly improve the way that the social sector operates. So what should we be talking about during these discussions?

1. A clear and explicit expectation of what both organizations hope to gain from their partnership.

Grantmakers and grantees often have different interests, so despite the great potential these conversations offer, one party may be more reluctant to establish a more relational norm of communication. Be clear upfront about what your organization hopes to gain from the conversation, and ask what the other might gain. This helps to set the course for how the foundation and the nonprofit are to engage moving forward, and together they can challenge the traditional notion that foundations carry the majority of the power through their ability to allocate resources at their own discretion. By viewing the exchange as more of a partnership, there is increasing recognition that the foundation and the nonprofit each have something to gain from discussing how they can carry out their relationship more effectively.

2. The types of grants that would best serve the grantee.

This type of conversation not only serves the grantee, but also the foundation. By ensuring that the grant meets the needs of the nonprofit organization, the foundation is ultimately ensuring that its grant has the greatest impact possible. If a grantmaker initiates this conversation, or ensures a safe space in which the grantee feels comfortable doing so, both parties will be able to honestly discuss the best practices for accomplishing their shared goals. NCRP has long highlighted certain grantmaking practices that ensure peak effectiveness. With this research in mind, grantmakers should consider flexible, multi-year grants that allow nonprofits to build infrastructure and capacity. This type of grantmaking offers myriad benefits:

It shifts the commonly-followed program evaluation model. Instead of looking at the impact of different projects, foundations can look into the overall social impact of the nonprofit organization.

  • It allows nonprofits to stay true to their mission and think about long-term impact, instead of short-term programmatic deliverables.
  • It takes the administrative burden off of each partner from having to process grants every year
  • It creates a longer time horizon for the grantee-grantmaker partnership.
  • It allows the grantee to maintain staff continuity and organizational leadership.

3. How to hold each other accountable to the same standards.

Foundations rely heavily upon grantee data to understand the impact of their grants. However, many do not hold themselves to similarly strict standards of evaluation or to similar metrics. Doing so could provide greater transparency in the philanthropic space, as grantees have greater information about how foundations perform. This could also be a great feedback circuit, allowing grantees to share information about what works and does not in the way that their grantmaker carries out its allocations.

Plus, having a similar set of measurements to evaluate success will empower grantees, facilitate further dialogue and better allow both parties to define future metrics of progress (as outlined in a recent Responsive Philanthropy article on co-creating metrics by USC’s Program for Environmental and Regional Equity’s Jennifer Ito). A foundation holding itself to the same standards of evaluation that it holds its grantees to signals a more equal partnership, in which each side can be critiqued for its performance. The topic of balance is applicable to many other contexts the grantee-grantmaker relationship creates, from email response rates to issue impact. Engaging equitably is an indispensable component of partnership.

There is no single way to carry out these conversations, and no one script for how grantees and grantmakers can engage in a more equal partnership. Being upfront about intentions and sincere in the desire to form a partnership is the best grounding for these conversations. And grantmakers shouldn’t be shy to initiate and encourage this process – after all, the inherent power dynamic can make it difficult for grantees to muster the courage to do so. Ultimately, if foundations and nonprofits work together relationally, society as a whole benefits. Therefore, both the foundation and the nonprofit have stake in addressing the nature of their relationship and how they can best respond to each other’s expectations and needs.

Lia Weintraub is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

This post originally appeared on the Alliance Magazine blog on January 30, 2015.

Trayvon Martin. Michael Brown. Eric Garner. Jordan Davis. Oscar Grant. Amadou Diallo. Sean Bell.

These are some of the most recognizable names of black people who have been killed by security officers in the United States, but only a small fraction of the total. The Malcolm X Grassroots Movement estimates that one black person is killed every 28 hours in the country by security officers. Over the past few years, a grassroots movement has emerged to end state violence against black people and other marginalized groups.

What is the role of foundations in this movement? The panelists on a recent webinar hosted by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, “Fueling the Movement: How Foundations Can Support the Fight for Racial Equity,” have offered some answers.

Moderated by NCRP executive director Aaron Dorfman, the webinar featured four panelists playing different roles in the growing movement:

Here are the top five themes that emerged from their conversation.

This intersectional movement is being led primarily by women, LGBTQ people, formerly incarcerated people and youth, and it needs to stay that way. All the presenters warned of the dangers of anchoring movements around charismatic, primarily straight, male leaders. History warns us of that model’s unsustainability, which encourages the tendency to elevate the needs of straight black men over those of others affected by state violence. Foundations can either perpetuate this phenomenon or correct it with how and who they choose to fund. Already the most recognizable victims of state violence are male. But the panelists celebrated leadership from other marginalized groups in this growing movement, and noted the importance of supporting and nurturing those leaders in order to build a successful, sustainable and inclusive movement.

General operating support and multi-year funding are essential for allowing movement leaders to respond quickly to opportunities that arise. Both Alicia and Zach recognized several foundations that have supported their work, especially their grassroots activities. They explained that general operating support and long-term funding is the best way to support the success of organizations that must respond quickly to changing situations. Alicia noted that she sometimes avoids foundation funding to remain flexible, but, as she put it, if foundations invest in “transformative rather than transactional” strategies, they can best support grassroots work.

Foundation staff and leaders can be organizers too! Foundations must work to examine and correct racial inequity from within, and to hold each other accountable. In addition to her role at Brooklyn Community Foundation, Tynesha is one of the organizers of Philanthropic Action for Racial Justice, a group of Black funders and intermediaries in philanthropy addressing how funders are supporting long-term solutions to issues such as state violence. She urged foundation staff and leaders to be courageous and explicit, calling out any institutional bias and racism unapologetically.

This is a long-term problem that requires long-term partnerships between foundations and grassroots leaders and organizations. Starsky spoke specifically about the unique partnership role that foundations can play in social justice movements. Foundations can lend legitimacy to the movement by standing with grassroots leaders. Philanthropic relationships can also generate unique research about the issues and to maximize the investment in grassroots leaders. All the speakers emphasized the importance of foundations following the direction of grassroots leaders. Community listening sessions and community-led grantmaking decisions are a few ways to ensure that power and leadership stays with community leaders.

Funding advocacy, policy reform, grassroots organizing, leadership development and community engagement are critical for impacting issues important to foundations. The panelists were very specific about how these activities need to be funded to sustain the growing racial equity movement. They also asserted that racial equity and ending state violence affect every issue a foundation might care about, and cannot be distilled into a single focus or program.

Check out the webinar recording here. And let us know in the comments: how is your foundation supporting the racial equity movement?

Jeanné Isler is field director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @j_lachapel