Part 1 of 2: How a Netflix documentary on nation’s immigration system puts a spotlight on the Comunidad Colectiva and the Carolina Migrant Network. 

Last month, Netfix premiered “Immigration Nation,” a multi-part documentary about the nation’s current war on immigration and the toll it is having on families in and out of the system.

Sister organizations Comunidad Colectiva and the Carolina Migrant Network are among the many organizations that the series focuses on.

NCRP’s Field Director Ben Barge sat down to speak with one of the organizations’ key leaders, Stefania Arteaga, about their work supporting and organizing immigrants down South.

Their continued struggle against criminalization and for funding, despite their achievements on the ground, is another reason why NCRP calls on funders to double down on their support of the pro-immigrant and -refugee movement.

Ben Barge: Immigration Nation recently premiered on Netflix, and when people get to episodes 3 and 4, they’ll see your incredible work with Comunidad Colectiva and the Carolina Migrant Network. How did this all begin?

Pict. of Stephania Arteaga is co-director/strategist of Comunidad Colectiva and the Carolina Migrant Network

Stephania Arteaga is co-director/strategist of Comunidad Colectiva and the Carolina Migrant Network

Stefania Arteaga: Comunidad Colectiva came to be because we had a gap in our community around grassroots organizing. A lot of us were involved in the momentum for comprehensive immigration reform in 2010, and when that sizzled, a lot of people burned out, including myself.

But we stayed involved, especially as the 2016 presidential election started ramping up. And then, here in Charlotte and across the Southeast, we saw so many youth being picked up at bus stops or on their way to school because of Operation Border Guardian, which was designed to pick up Central American migrants who had aged out and had exhausted all legal remedies.

And so we realized we had to be more intentional about our organizing. We’re really just a bunch of folks who grew up together and organized a youth group who said, “we need to do something about this.” I think I was the youngest, I was 20 at the time.

We began organizing community defense watches to limit ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and protect people from their retaliatory behavior.

But there was no nonprofit in the state providing bond representation to people detained. And so people would call our hotline to report ICE activity, or worse, to say “so and so has been detained” or “so and so hasn’t come home in a couple of days, can you help us find them?”

And our only option was to refer them to pro bono representation with a backlog of 3-4 months. So we created the Carolina Migrant Network to really address the retaliatory nature of ICE operations, which you see in the Netflix documentary.

Currently, it is the only organization in the Carolinas providing pro-bono bond representation to people detained by ICE.

 

BB: Our immigration system and ICE enforcement is getting more attention under the Trump administration, in part because it’s become even more extreme. But a lot of what’s happening now also happened under previous administrations. What would you say to funders who have given a one-time grant or an emergency commitment to support the pro-immigrant, pro-refugee movement, but think with a different president the need for funding will go away?

SA: First, DHS (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) isn’t stopping, and their funding isn’t stopping. If anything, they’re growing.

An organization that just came about in 2003 and only required a small percentage of our federal budget is now overwhelmingly requesting more and more funds.

They have even taken dollars away from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), while we’re in the middle of (Hurricane) Isaias coming through the Carolinas.

It’s really difficult, especially for communities in the South. You know we are kind of ground zero. We are a new community that is experiencing a lot of retaliation and disenfranchisement in local government. And as a rogue agency with no accountability, ICE takes advantage of that.

The documentary shows the lengths to which ICE is willing to go to punish and undo the will of voters who decided they did not want Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g) in their communities. i

They’ve pushed anti-immigrant bills and new 287(g)-like programs with no expiration date in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida, as a testing ground for the rest of the country.

So our work isn’t over. We need more funding, for the legal support to reunite our community and the capacity to help them organizing.

 

BB: It takes a lot of courage to share your story with the world. What’s the biggest lesson that you hope folks take from the show?
SA: First, listen to directly impacted people and organizers, because they’re not exaggerating about what’s happening on the ground and sometimes it’s even worse.

Two weeks after Trump was inaugurated, we had series of raids in Charlotte and across the state and when we reported that to news outlets, they said, no, that cannot be true, because ICE has said that they have not been conducting any operations.

A week later, we got 8,000 people out on the streets in Charlotte to shut Uptown down, to let them know that yeah, there’s people here who have been impacted.

We’re often stuck on red or blue, but the bigger point is that policymakers can screw somebody’s life over if we don’t hold them accountable.

Throughout all of this, we were followed and surveilled to intimidate us and limit our First Amendment right to free speech.

It shows the level of resources this the federal government is willing to place on their destructive policies while communities are, you know, are trying to operate on sticks and chewing gum.

Second, I strongly believe that investing in communities is feeding a lineage of organizers. I wouldn’t have been able to do what I am doing now, if it wasn’t because 10 years ago a funder decided to fund the Latin American Coalition, who created this youth group who then taught me how to do what I’m doing now.

Right now is the time to invest in new Southern innovative organizing – funding towards directly impacted people. We need somebody to invest in us so 10 years from now, there’s going be other Stefania-likes. So that would be my pitch. If we want change, we need to invest in it.

Ben Barge is NCRP’s field director. Stephania Arteaga is co-director/strategist of Comunidad Colectiva and the Carolina Migrant Network 

Read Part 2 of this story, when Ben and Stephanie discuss what philanthropy can learn from the documentary and Comunidad Colectiva’s work.

In light of the national uprising sparked by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (and building on other recent tragic movement moments going back to the 2014 murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri), NCRP is analyzing grantmaking by community foundations across the country to find out exactly how much they are – or are not – investing in Black communities.

We started by looking at the latest available grantmaking data (2016-2018) of 25 community foundations (CFs) – from Los Angeles to New Orleans to New York City to St. Paul. These foundations represent a cross section of some of the country’s largest community foundations as well as foundations in communities where NCRP has Black-led nonprofit allies. [1]

What did we find?

CONTINUED UNDERINVESTMENT, DESPITE INTENTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS

Altogether, only 1% of grantmaking from the 25 foundations that we looked at was specifically designated for Black communities, even though a combined 15% of these 25 cities’ populations are Black.

Put another way, these 25 foundations together designated $78 in funding per person in their communities, but only explicitly designated $6 per Black person in their communities.

Foundation Name
City 
“% of foundation
grants explicitly designated for Black communities (2016-2018) 
Black %  of
City Population 
Baton Rouge Area Foundation 
Baton Rouge, LA 
3.2% 
35% 
Black Belt Community Foundation 
Selma, AL 
9.4% 
58% 
California Community Foundation 
Los Angeles, CA 
0.3% 
8% 
Central Florida Foundation 
Orlando, FL 
0.0% 
16% 
Columbus Foundation 
Columbus, OH
 
1.5% 
16% 
Community Foundation for Mississippi 
Jackson, MS
 
0.0% 
49% 
Community Foundation of Greater Memphis 
Memphis, TN
 
2.1% 
47%
 
Community Foundation of St. Joseph County 
South Bend, IN 
0.0% 
13% 
East Bay Community Foundation 
Oakland, CA 
0.8% 
9% 
Foundation for the Carolinas 
Charlotte, NC 
0.5% 
22%
 
Greater Atlanta Community Foundation 
Atlanta, GA
 
1.7% 
34% 
Greater Birmingham Foundation 
Birmingham, AL 
0.6% 
28% 
Greater Houston Community Foundation 
Houston, TV 
1.6% 
22% 
Greater Kansas City Community Foundation 
Kansas City, MO 
0.4% 
12% 
Greater New Orleans Foundation 
New Orleans, LA 
2.7% 
35% 
Greater Washington Community Foundation 
Washington, DC 
3.3% 
27% 
New York Community Trust 
New York, NY 
4.2% 
15% 
Oregon Community Foundation 
Portland, OR
 
0.6% 
2% 
Seattle Foundation
 
Seattle, WA 
1.0% 
6% 
Silicon Valley Community Foundation 
San Jose, CA
 
0.4% 
6%
 
St. Paul and Minnesota Foundation 
St. Paul, MN 
1.5% 
6%
 
The Chicago Community Trust 
Chicago, IL 
1.7% 
16% 
The Cleveland Foundation 
Cleveland, OH 
1.2% 
19% 
The Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee (TN) 
Nashville, TN 
3.3% 
14% 
Tulsa Community Foundation 
Tulsa, OK 
0.4% 
8% 
 
Find more detailed funding information per community foundation  
on these Tableau and Excel sheets 

These 25 foundations also designated a greater percentage on direct services, but less on structural change, in the general population than they did per Black person. Of the $78 designated per capita on the general population, $52 (66.7%) was designated for direct services and $2.42 on structural change (3.1%). Of the $6 explicitly designated per Black person, $0.51 (8.3%) was designated for structural change and $3.66 (61%) was spent on direct services.

THE EVER-PERSISTENT RESOURCE GAP

The gap between actual community foundation support for Black communities and what we would expect to observe translates into real dollars that are could be used address issues that impact us all. If community foundations explicitly designated investments for Black communities on a per capita basis like they invested in the general population, Black communities in these cities alone would have been the beneficiaries of $2 billion more in grantmaking since 2016.[2]

With the median annual budget (as measured by total expenses reported on forms 990) for organizations in the racial and ethnic minority rights NTEE code category being $445,000, an extra $2 billion could have easily powered hundreds or even thousands of new grassroots Black-led social change organizations, significantly expanding the 501(c)3 and (c)4 ecosystem for the work of Black liberation.

The Black investment rate disparity of these community foundations is, surprisingly, far worse than some other notable measures of inequality. The 25 community foundations that we examined designated grants for non-Black communities at a rate 13 times more than they have explicitly designated for Black communities since 2016. In Q4 of 2019, the median weekly paycheck for white Americans was 1.2 times that for Black Americans.[3] In 2016, median white household wealth was 10 times that of Black households. [4]

Sadly, these conclusions are not new. Our current data snapshot builds on decades of research by the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity (PRE), The Association of Black Foundation Executives (ABFE), Greenlining Institute and others describe philanthropy’s massive under-investment in communities of color and in Black communities specifically. PRE and ABFE’s research has shown total philanthropic support for Black communities hovering at around 1.8%. It appears that these community foundations aren’t even keeping up with the abysmal standards nationally set by their peers.

Proportional funding is also just the start of the equity conversation, not the end.

It is certainly arguable whether decades of financial underinvestment by both the philanthropic sector and other sectors of society can simply be undone by tying funding amounts alone to population data, especially considering the traditional undercounting issues surround Census data, as well the longstanding accuracy issues with philanthropy sector-related data.

Foundations looking to deeply tackle the issue should start by having an honest dialogue with the Black-led, Black-serving organizations in their communities. What are their assets and strengths? Their priorities? How can the foundation deploy its resources to the benefit of the whole community and not just part?

Funding Black communities at a rate commensurate with their relative size is a floor for equitable funding, not a ceiling.

NOW IS THE TIME TO MATCH OUR INTENTIONS WITH FUNDING ACTIONS 

Community foundations are not like other grantmakers. They receive a public subsidy above and beyond that available to private foundations (e.g. the Ford Foundation) by nature of their commitment to raising funds from the public instead of just one person or family. And in order to raise funds for community use, they rely on their reputation as a foundation focused on a whole community instead of a specific cause or issue area. Choosing to direct 99% of their grantmaking away from Black communities undermines the community foundation brand.

Many people who work in these foundations will be painfully aware of this data. Many will ask either internally or publicly whether it’s fair to judge their institutions with data that is from 2 years ago. So much has changed since then. So many foundations have stepped up to provide support in ways that they haven’t before.

Yet, while it is important to remember the good work that many community foundations are attempting to do in the current moment, it is equally important to put these commitments alongside the overall spending numbers of these organizations — both current and traditional. Consider this: Even if community foundation giving for Black communities had tripled since 2018 — which would represent a seismic shift in grantmaking priorities — it still would not even amount to 4% of all giving in these cities.

The bottom line is that community foundations have neglected their charge to serve their full communities. Regardless of why, we must be immediately address how Black Americans have been excluded from community foundation grantmaking writ large.

With COVID-19 continuing disproportionately negatively impact Black communities, and as the country is gripped by a national reckoning about the role of white supremacy in our public life, this “redlining by another name” – as ABFE described it – is holding us all back.

CORRECTION(S)
The gap between current funding and funding/population parity for Black communities over the three years in question is $2 billion, not $200 billion, as was originally reported.

UPDATED NUMBERS & ANALYSIS
This report was originally published in August of 2020. In March 2023, NCRP’s Katherine Ponce examined the lessons learned since then, including looking at the updated numbers.

SEPTEMBER 2020 EDITOR’S NOTE
In an effort to further clarify our point and methodology, we have edited several parts of the report to make it clear that we are discussing community foundation grants that were specifically targeted to or explicitly designated for the Black Community. Click here for more details.

ENDNOTES
1. Additional details about the report’s data methodology, can be found in the report’s Methodology section below and the report’s FAQ page

2. The original version of the report contained typo that has been corrected. The gap between current funding and funding/population parity for Black communities over the three years in question is $2 billion, not $200 billion. If you have questions about this or other methodology questions contact NCRP’s Research Director Ryan Schlegel at rschlegel[at]ncrp.org. (Updated 8/27/2020)

3. https://inequality.org/facts/racial-inequality/
4. https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/

METHODOLOGY
The data in this brief report is based on NCRP’s analysis of Candid giving data, which we paired with Census (ACS, 2018) demographic data. Candid (formerly GuideStar + Foundation Center) is the definitive philanthropy sector source for information on foundation grantmaking.

NCRP’s query of Candid data includes grantmaking

  • from each community foundation,
  • for work to benefit the community foundation’s home state (or states in cases where the foundation serves a multi-state community)
  • from 2016 to 2018

Grantmaking for Black communities includes all grants to which Candid assigned the “People of African Descent” beneficiary population code.

Grantmaking for structural change includes all grants to which Candid assigned the “Democracy” or “Human Rights” subject codes.

Grantmaking for direct services includes all grants to which Candid assigned the “Education,” “Health,” or “Human Services” subject codes.

Demographic statistics used in the per capita funding calculations are from the Census 2018 American Community Survey and pertain to the metropolitan area where each community foundation is based as defined by the

Census Bureau. Black per capita funding statistics pertain to the Black population numbers, total per capita funding statistics pertain to total population numbers.

More answers to Frequently Asked Questions about our data can be found here: https://www.ncrp.org/news/faq-black-funding-denied-data-report

CREDITS
Initial writing and data analysis spearheaded by NCRP Director of Research Ryan Schlegel and compiled by Senior Associate for Movement Research Stephanie Peng and Research & Development intern Spencer Ozer. Additional writing and editing provided by Director of Marketing and Membership Janay Richmond, Vice President and Chief Engagement Officer Jeanne Lewis and the NCRP Communications staff of Elbert Garcia and Peter Haldis. 

If the past few months have shown us anything, it is that there is no going back to normal. Beyond the unimaginable thought of full subway trains and crowded restaurants and bars, our “normal” was horribly flawed.

Our “normal” meant accepting the hostility and racism against the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community as COVID-19 spread, a disease that is disproportionately affecting Black communities, who are also the targets of state-sponsored violence.

It’s time for a new normal. A new normal that must address anti-Asian hostility and anti-Black racism head on, especially as organizations seek to diversify and deepen their work around racial equity.

To do that, we must acknowledge the historical roots of anti-Asian racism in this country and how it has served the myth of white supremacy.

Anti-Asian racism as a tool of white supremacy

The demonization of Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic is part of a long history of discrimination and social shaming in the U.S.

The Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882, internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and labeling of Southeast Asians as terrorists post 9/11, are just a few reminders that anti-Asian hostility is long ingrained in America’s history.

We see the continuation of that rhetoric not just in the policies of the current presidential administration, but also with the model minority myth.

For many years, AAPI people, and East Asians in particular, have benefited from the model minority myth, created to further divide Asian Americans and Black people to benefit white people.

Asian Americans were considered hardworking and obedient, a stereotype that embraced anti-Black rhetoric and granted many AAPI people access to something almost like white privilege. This dynamic exists in philanthropy, too.

This myth has been harmful for the AAPI community, masking the complexity and unique identities of each community, while further worsening the perceptions towards Black people.

But it has also permitted and even encouraged more violence against Black people – by white people and people who aren’t white.

A hard reset is needed

As conversations about racial equity have gained renewed traction, the reality is that anti-Blackness is still ingrained in the sector.

Philanthropic institutions have made bold statements and committed to action to condemn anti-Asian racism and anti-Blackness.

But we know from the data available that AAPI communities receive just 0.2% of all U.S. grantmaking, and Black communities received just 1% in 2017.

In Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy’s open letter to philanthropy to cure “viral racism,” one of the calls to action is to “think of this moment as a ‘reset’ button to imagine a more holistic approach to philanthropy that gains new traction toward racial and gender equity.”

If we are serious about creating a new normal, we must imagine and create a more holistic philanthropic approach that includes AAPI voices that aren’t at the expense of Black ones. One place to start is by increasing AAPI representation, especially at the leadership level.

According to recent data from the Diversity Among Philanthropic Professionals (DAPP) survey, AAPI people make up 9% of the sector, and 14% of the millennials in philanthropy.

This statistic bodes well for the future, especially as it relates to the overall size of the applicant pool over the next decade. AAPI are the fastest growing minority population, and are younger than white people, reflecting the trend that young people are more diverse and more progressive.

Young, progressive and in primed position for leadership 

Millennial AAPI representation in philanthropy that reflects more progressive perspectives is critical to responding to and meeting the unique needs of the population, which includes people from over 20 countries and many more cultures, religions and languages.

And as millennials become the next philanthropic leaders – and as Gen Zers enter the work force – it is also critical to ensure that there is a leadership development pipeline to positions with decision-making power over foundation strategies.

Currently, within the already white-dominated sector, AAPI people are especially underrepresented at the board level, making up only 4% of boards, compared to 60% of white board representation.

If this continues, even with increased AAPI representation in other positions, funding inequities will still exist without AAPI voices leading on funding strategies that meet the needs of the community.

Diversity at the board level is a key driver to setting strategies and funding priorities that meet the needs of the communities the sector seeks to serve.

Representation from the AAPI community is even more important to make sure the complex needs and challenges of the community are not lost or misunderstood as a monolithic community.

But increasing AAPI representation must also come with increasing Black representation in the sector. While AAPI people make up 9% of philanthropy, Black people make up only 11% of the sector. DAPP data suggests that even with increased representation of people of color, they are not becoming more Black or even more inclusive of Black voices at decision-making tables. Even though people of color make up 38% of the sector, white people are still the majority in philanthropy, making up 60% of the sector.

That’s why it’s so important for Asian Americans to play an active role in confronting anti-Blackness in philanthropy’s equity work. Doing so helps our communities break free from the “wedge” narrative and helps erode another tool of white supremacy

A new world is within our grasp

As a sector whose foundations are rooted in the profits born from racial inequality and exploitation, philanthropy has a responsibility to lead as the world looks to create new, more equitable normal.

This effort must be co-powered by AAPI voices and experiences without reinforcing harmful narratives that further divide AAPI and Black communities. Additional steps to confront racism and establish a new normal in philanthropy:

  • Use an anti-racist lens in grantmaking and fund strategies that address racism while meeting more urgent community needs.
  • Increase AAPI representation in decision-making positions, especially at the board level.
  • Examine how anti-Blackness exists in your organization: Are AAPI staff filling token diversity roles that perpetuate the model minority myth? Are you increasing Black representation as you increase diversity? How are AAPI voices represented in conversations about race and equity?

We must imagine change that does more than just look different. Our communities deserve — and our collective future depends on — an equitable world that is no longer powered by white supremacy but instead on solidarity and justice.

Stephanie Peng is NCRP’s senior associate for movement research. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

We are in a moment of great pain and opportunity.

The combined crises of the COVID-19 pandemic and uprisings against law enforcement have exposed the broken parts of our systems and institutions in an unprecedented way.

Philanthropy has an opportunity to respond to these gaps with courage. Black-led organizations fighting for social justice have repeatedly explained the need for more funding and better relationships with philanthropy. For decades our sector has been aware of health and resource disparities that led to disproportionate impact of COVID-19 pandemic.

In our newest issue of Responsive Philanthropy, our authors invite us to act boldly on best practices and shift priorities to support organizations who work to correct the weak points in our society.

The COVID-19 crisis and political reset: Wielding philanthropic power for a just recovery

Rev. Dr. Starsky Wilson of the Deaconess Foundation reminds us that now is the time to be explicit about race, anti-Blackness and racial equity. Funders can use communications platforms and advocacy resources to help movement leaders push policy beyond what is pragmatic for a just-recovery.

The people are beautiful, already

Nichole June Maher of Group Health Foundation urges philanthropy to find the willpower to wield its social, political and economic power and acknowledge its ongoing role in social inequities.

The coolest equity-focused family foundation you’ve probably never heard of

Aaron Dorfman, NCRP CEO, shares reflections from Satterberg Foundation grantees about a model that other family foundations can follow. A popular and helpful practice that every foundation could do, especially in moments of crisis, is increase payout.

From protest to political power: Why we give to 501(c)4 organizations

Finally, we hear from several funders and donors about why they give to 501(c)4 organizations, a critical strategy for supporting organizations that fight to correct broken systems.

Philanthropy at its best trusts frontline, movement organizations. Black-led organizations and others with deep networks in marginalized communities deserve that trust now more than ever as they lead the charge for significant policy change and social transformation.

Don’t miss this opportunity to be a partner in the nation’s social transformation.

The coronavirus pandemic has re-affirmed how integral immigrants and refugees are to the health and security of the country as well as the unique challenges this community faces. Immigrants and refugees represent a disproportionate percentage of essential health care and food industry workers, yet many have been left out of federal and state relief packages.

As organizations serving immigrants and refugees navigate through current health and political crises, what financial resources can they expect from their local foundations? Not enough, according to a new analysis of publicly available data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia by NCRP.  

The new online tool, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor: Local Foundations, Immigrants and Refugee Populations,” found that pro-immigrant and refugee nonprofits are proportionally underfunded by state-based grantmakers when compared to the demographic reality on the ground.  

While immigrants and refugees represent 14% of the nation’s population, the share of local philanthropic dollars invested in this community from 2017-2018 was just 1% for service organizations and 0.4% for movement groups involved in advocacy and organizing. This is despite a series of aggressive anti-immigrant and refugee policies pursued by the Trump administration targeting both documented and undocumented people.  

“Local funders play an essential role in filling gaps experienced by their communities, shoring up vital immigrant-serving organizations and ensuring equitable, inclusive recovery in their own backyards. NCRP’s new tool can help funders see where resources are deeply needed and –- most importantly –- take action.”

MONICA MUNN, Senior Director
World Education Services Mariam Assefa Fund

Among the report’s notable findings: 

  • A sample of 530 of the largest state-based grantmakers in each state and the District of Columbia found that 254 foundations across 49 states (47.9%) gave at least one grant towards organizations serving this population in 2017-2018.
  • At least 50% of our sample of the largest local foundations in 26 states funded immigrant and refugee support efforts. In standout states like Illinois, Massachusetts and Minnesota, a full 90% of their Top 10 local institutional funders dispersed funds to nonprofits that serve immigrants and refugees.
  • Yet, foundations in less than a third of states (14) met or exceeded even the already disproportionately low 1% threshold for local grantmaking benefiting immigrants and refugees in 2017-2018.
  • Foundations in only eight states matched or exceeded the overall 0.4% share of local funding for movement advocacy and organizing.
  • Just 14 foundations of our sample of top local funders funded immigrant and refugee serving organizations at or above the same percentage as their state’s share of foreign-born residents.
  • Only two foundations — Rose Community Foundation (CO) and the Legal Foundation of Washington (WA) — distributed funds to the pro-immigrant, pro-refugee movement at shares that matched or exceeded their state’s percentage of foreign-born residents.  

“As a newer national grassroots organization that is built and led by refugees and asylum seekers, it’s often hard to compete for local funding with larger, better-resourced organizations.This dashboard helps level the playing field for our all-volunteer membership, allowing us to advocate more effectively with and for our local and state communities.”

NILI SARIT YOSSINGER, National Director
Refugee Congress
NCRP’s digital dashboard and executive summary is a direct follow up to a 2019 NCRP report, which found that, at the federal level, nonprofits serving immigrants and refugees received barely 1% of funding from the largest U.S. foundations nationwide. The new analysis and data tool puts that national trend in a state-by-state context.  

“Life for immigrants and refugees was precarious even before the current coronavirus pandemic. With fewer public resources available, this data dashboard is an important tool in ensuring that local philanthropy seizes the opportunity to fill in the gaps of support that we need to strengthen communities and turn back the rising xenophobia and stringent federal policies that threaten so much of our shared future.”  

DR. ABBAS BARZEGAR, National Research and Advocacy Director
Council on American-Islamic Relations

There’s a lot of discussion around how nonprofits will weather the current coronavirus pandemic, but not enough attention as to why movements continue to be underfunded in the first place.

If we want to effectively reverse decades of under-resourcing groups on the frontlines of catalyzing change, we need to be honest about where we are. This interactive dashboard provides both local activists and funders a shared view of where they stand and how to move forward together.

What you resist will persist is such a powerful frame to describe the complex, tedious and often exhausting dance that occurs between the national philanthropic sector and rural grassroots leaders who are moving transformational work with limited resources across the Southeast and Appalachia.

The very acknowledgement of this dance is shedding light on an important pain point: the historical and persistent underinvestment in movement work in Southern and Appalachian communities.

To disrupt this clumsy dance between funders and community requires an understanding that each partners’ success is intimately tied together and necessitates a level of proximity, trust and investment to move in a seamless way towards a shared line of sight.

What we know from the countless stories that we see play out over and over again in the region is that the philanthropic sector has struggled to fully commit to be a significant dance partner in our work to drive social change.

This struggle has been further fueled by a damaging and inaccurate national narrative that the Southeast and Appalachia drain the country’s resources – despite the fact that we are fueling the resistance.

A true depiction of our region is one of boldness and bravery, where diverse leaders are building intersectional movements that are centered in their relationships to people, place, culture and history:

  • Coal workers are striking when their work goes unpaid by blocking the coal trains.
  • Teachers are striking due to dire funding cuts.
  • Indigenous peoples are leading climate change action.
  • LGBTQIA+ and Black communities are fighting policies that undermine reproductive rights, policing and economic inequity.
  • A growing immigrant population is bringing back economic prosperity to struggling rural areas.

The reality is that these movement leaders are influencing policies and systems change in a significant way despite underinvestment in their work.

These disparities in philanthropic support in the South are reflected in NCRP and Grantmakers for Southern Progress’s (GSP) 2018 publication As the South Grows: So Grows the Nation, which highlighted that, “Between 2011 and 2015, foundations nationwide invested 56 cents per person in the South for every dollar per person they invested nationally.”

NCRP and GSP further documented that funders provided 30 cents per person for structural change work in the South for every dollar per person nationally.

This research has amplified efforts by GSP and the Appalachia Funders Network, who are aligning national and regional funders, institutional partners and grassroots leaders to move significant resources in a catalytic way to support grassroots movements that are using innovative, progressive and impactful strategies across the region.

These groups are creating the necessary space to raise critical questions within and among the philanthropic community regarding the patterns, harm and implications of toggling in and out of unsustainable relationships with grassroots leaders in the South and Appalachia.

These collective efforts are converging at a critical moment of time where robust movements across the region are working in an intersectional way to drive social change.

Ultimately, the continuous cycle of underinvestment undermines our work and presents an urgent opportunity to strategically align investments to build on local momentum and spark national change. 

And yet in the face of these facts, the work driven by grassroots leaders here persists and today’s Southern movement leaders are countering and interrupting underinvestment by using our collective social capital to re-imagine and move philanthropic power into the hands of the people who live and work here.

This decentralized form of philanthropy is fueling movements for justice and equity at the intersections of race, gender, class, sexual identity and immigration status.

We call this social change philanthropy: the intentional practice of centering communities that are most impacted, addressing systemic issues, naming inequities, creating equitable and inclusive practices, and celebrating innovation and creativity.

In our region, CoThinkk is a powerful example of a social change philanthropic model that is addressing complex challenges by amplifying the time, talent and treasure of African-American and Latinx community leaders and allies to shift narratives, deepen equity and drive systems change.

CoThinkk is a partner in a broader giving circle movement, Community Investment Network, anchored in the South, and its membership is comprised of a network of grassroot leaders, change agents, and organizations who care about the economic and social well-being of communities of color.

In this approach, grassroots communities are not waiting for permission. Instead, they are using philanthropy as a tool to move away from disempowering beliefs to powerful action, where people are shifting their own mindsets, tapping into their own power and wisdom, and moving powerful work.

This type of grantmaking has fostered pathways for African-American and Latinx leaders to run for local office, shift local policies, disrupt the status quo, and bring new and innovative solutions to the table. This is what equitable and inclusive grantmaking looks like in rural places.

As the philanthropic sector continues to sharpen its equity and inclusion lens, this focus must centralize equitable grantmaking in partnership with grassroots leaders in the Southeast and Appalachia.

Our dance must be on beat and in rhythm with each other to support the radical work that is happening here in service to driving social change so that everyone can thrive.

Tracey Greene-Washington is the founder of CoThinkk and president of Indigo Innovation Group. Mary Snow is a member of CoThinkk and president of Equitable Community Strategies. Follow @MsCoThinkk and @Mary_K_Snow on Twitter.

Photo by a CoThinkk member.

Anti-immigrant rhetoric has become all too common in the Trump era – most recently in this week’s State of the Union address. But it’s not all talk.

Last week, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Supreme Court ruled to allow new “public charge” immigration rules to take effect – affirming the same kind of wealth test that condemned tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants to die during World War II.

By privileging wealth, education and English proficiency, this policy disproportionately impacts non-white immigrants and would deny them a future in the U.S. if they have ever used, or are judged as likely to use, public assistance for basic needs, like food, healthcare and housing. 

Even though it is unclear how this policy will be implemented, the damage has been already done to immigrant families and communities.

While the rule would apply only to people applying for a green card, the Urban Institute says that confusion and fear about what the policy means and who it affects has caused 1 in 7 immigrant adults to avoid public benefits and services. Even if the rule does not apply to them.

This fear and confusion causing immigrant families to withdraw from services providing critical needs would have devastating effects for all communities.

It’s time for all of philanthropy to act.

When the public charge was first introduced in 2018, Grantmakers Concerned for Immigrants and Refugees organized more than 60 funders, grantmakers and philanthropic support organizations (PSOs) submitted public comments against the rule.

However, philanthropy cannot merely maintain its status quo of funding and support – it must also ramp up its support of the communities fighting in the face of xenophobia.

A lack of a dedicated portfolio for immigrants is not an excuse for inaction. Immigrants are parents, neighbors, business owners, teachers, students and more. They are an integral part of all sectors of American life.

By risking the health, safety and prosperity of immigrants, we are risking the health, safety and prosperity of all of our communities.

The administration’s new policy especially harms the 1 in 4 children in the U.S. who have at least 1 immigrant parent. 

Grantmakers that care about health cannot have healthy communities if families that are scared to enroll in Medicaid do not have access to care for urgent health needs and chronic conditions.

Grantmakers working in education risk lowering education outcomes for the whole community if children cannot succeed in school because they don’t have regular health care or receive proper nutrition.

Grantmakers risk the economic well-being of the whole community if immigrant families that are scared to use housing assistance risk their economic security to pay for rent, in addition to worrying about medical bills or worrying about food.

Expanding the pot that funds the fight

Communities and organizations have been fighting this rule and will continue to fight. As we heard anecdotally during interviews with leaders in the pro-immigrant, pro-refugee movement for the Movement Investment Project, many of the victories for immigrant communities come from the state and local level.

But funding for local grassroots organizations and national networks accountable to communities dedicated to advancing immigrant justice was an even smaller share of an already small pot of funding.

Data for NCRPs Movement Investment Project showed that barely 1% of funding from the top 1000 foundations benefits immigrants and refugees.

In fact, U.S. foundations in 2016 gave more to leisure sports than to empowering immigrant communities to change policies that threaten them.

To effectively channel our outrage, it is imperative that local and state organizations have the resources and support they need to protect our communities.

Here are a few ways philanthropy can take action:

1. Examine your grantmaking portfolio to see if you are already supporting the immigrant and refugee community. Increasing threats to immigrants and refugees means increasing threats to the health, education and economic security of all communities. You may already be funding immigrants through the communities you’re supporting, even if you don’t have a dedicated portfolio.

2. Fund the work necessary to protect communities and fight against harmful policies. Support organizations in your community that do outreach and build power within immigrant and refugee communities. Community education and legal assistance are critical components for communities to make empowered decisions that can change harmful systems and policies. 

3. Learn from and join pro-immigrant and refugee networks to move resources quickly and effectively. Four Freedoms Fund, Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, Rise Together Fund, FIRM, Protecting Immigrant Families and We Are All America are resources, as are NCRP’s community of nonprofit member organizations working on immigrant and refugee rights and justice.

4. Stand in solidarity with your communities. This goes beyond funding and includes lifting up critical voices in the movement, including campaigns like #protectfamilies campaign on social media, making public statements against policies that harm immigrants, and using your political and reputational capital to influence peers.

While immigrant and refugee communities have been facing increasing threats over the past few years, the administration’s new policy stands contrary to the values of liberty, refuge and a chance for prosperity of our country.

This policy, in addition to the recent announcement of the expanded travel ban that disproportionately targets Black and Muslim immigrants, is a radical move in the administration’s anti-immigrant agenda, and it demands radical action from all grantmakers who care about the health, safety and prosperity of their communities.

We know the horrifying consequences that inaction has cost us in the past. Philanthropy must now take a stand or be held responsible for the harm that inaction can have on all communities in America.

Stephanie Peng is NCRP’s senior associate for movement research. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Photo by Paul Rollings. Used under Creative Commons license.

It’s easy to forget, in a sector where Gateses, Fords, Lillys and Hewletts dominate the discourse, that most institutional philanthropies are small, leanly staffed, little-known foundations.

In any given year, roughly a quarter of all U.S. grantmaking comes from the 90%+ of foundations whose annual giving is less than $10 million.

Recent research from Exponent Philanthropy suggests those small foundations believe racial equity is relevant to their work.

At the same time, the data also show that they are overwhelmingly staffed and led by white people.

Exponent’s 2019 Foundation Operations and Management Report survey, which is available to Exponent members and was generously shared with NCRP, found that:

  • 75% of respondent foundations have white-only boards of directors.
  • 78% have white-only staffs.
  • 89% have white CEOs.

These findings are striking in light of the fact that the U.S. as whole is about 40% people of color. The Census Bureau estimates that this year more than half of U.S. children will be non-white.

The contrast between the nation’s demographics and the demographics of small foundations, then, appear to reflect – or even amplify – the racialized nature of the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.

Exponent survey respondent foundations aren’t oblivious to the role that systemic racism plays in the challenges they seek to address through their funding.

Almost 75% of foundations answered that racial equity was at least somewhat relevant to their missions, and more than 33% said that it was very relevant.

Philanthropy lives in a bubble, but isn’t immune to culture change.

It seems likely that the embrace of racial equity is a result of the public awareness and discourse on the issue created by the Movement for Black Lives, the pro-immigrant movement and other movements that center people of color (alongside, of course, the ongoing work of philanthropic sector racial equity advocates like ABFE, Philanthropic Racial Equity and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations).

Unfortunately, that embrace doesn’t appear to have shifted from words to action for many of the surveyed foundations.

Fully 75% said they had made no grants for advocacy or public policy work in the last year, despite NCRP research that shows that grantmaking for advocacy and other social justice strategies is a high-leverage strategy for affecting the kind of structural change necessary to achieve racial equity.

Funders may face operational barriers such as the fact that many small foundations have all-white boards because they have relied only on family to help lead.

But that’s not the only way to run an effective philanthropy. Some of the country’s leading family foundations have found great success adding non-family members to their boards of directors.

As the country and the philanthropic sector moves into a new decade, here are 3 first steps small foundations can take to turn racial equity rhetoric and resolutions into reality:

1. Create an equity baseline using the Power Moves assessment to evaluate your foundation through an equity lens.

NCRP has distilled years of social justice evaluation research into a thorough but easy-to-use self-evaluative framework.

Power Moves is a complete self-assessment toolkit to determine how well you are building, sharing and wielding power and identify ways to transform your programs and operations for lasting, equitable impact.

You may find opportunities for changes in your grantmaking such as funding more people-of-color led organizations, but also in your operations for example by adding non-family members to boards.

It’s especially well-suited to small foundations who may lack the in-house evaluative expertise many large funders possess.

2. Adopt the “Rooney Rule” to hire with racial equity in mind.

It may be time for a philanthropic version of the “Rooney Rule,” requiring that at least 1 person of color is interviewed for each open position, for recruiting new staff.

Organizational psychology research has shown that diverse staff leads to better business outcomes, and there’s every reason to think the same is true for philanthropic outcomes.

The pipelines for excellent Black, Hispanic, Native and other non-white philanthropic leaders exist. Consider the ways your current hiring practices may not be reaching those pipelines and knock down the barriers to better recruitment and more impact.

3. Use the opportunity this year to make an advocacy test grant.

This year is a pivotal year for the future of our communities and our country, with the census and elections from the top of the ballot down to the bottom.

There are plenty of ways that 501(c)3 organizations can engage in important issue advocacy around the policies and processes (such as the census) that will influence the health, wealth and general well-being of Americans for years to come.

More than perhaps anything else you could fund this year, advocacy is a high-leverage investment in our future.

Consider making a test grant for advocacy in your community around the issues you care about. If any of your current grantees already do advocacy work, speak with them to help guide you.

Small funders have an opportunity to impact their local communities in ways that large national funders simply can’t.

With an increased focus on turning racial equity intent into impact, America’s small foundations can create change from the ground up by making a New Year’s resolution to turn their rhetoric into reality.

Ryan Schlegel is NCRP’s director of research. Follow @r_j_schlegel and @NCRP on Twitter.

In the aftermath of this year’s series of devastating earthquakes in Puerto Rico, local nonprofits across the island are providing crucial services to thousands of affected Puerto Ricans. 

Current and former NCRP nonprofit members and coalition partners supporting recovery efforts include Taller Salud, The Center for Popular Democracy’s (CPD) Maria Fund and coalition partner Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP). 

Nonprofits launch major campaigns to support earthquake recovery 

Taller Salud’s work is threefold. It is raising money for organizations working in the impacted communities; setting up a fund to cover reproductive justice services and accepting donations for women’s health needs; and co-creating a public pressure advocacy campaign to allow Puerto Ricans to speak out in their time of crisis. 

Meanwhile, HIP is on the ground in Puerto Rico and is organizing its network to direct resources to grassroots organizations and identify where to best drive support. Its urgent campaign goal is to raise $15,000 by Feb. 3. 

“If you have been wondering how to help, this is the moment. Now, more than ever, our brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico need our help. Help us meet our $15,000 goal by the end of the week so we can get immediate support to our partners on the ground,” HIP President and CEO Ana Marie Argilagos wrote in an email to supporters. 

CPD is also using its Maria Fund, started in the wake of Hurricane Maria in 2017, to mobilize long-term support for groups working on the island. 

CPD’s Julio Lopez Varona says that these natural disasters would have a less devastating impact on the Puerto Rican people if greater investment was made in the island’s physical and social infrastructure.  

“In order to ensure that Puerto Ricans achieve a just recovery, we must address the root of the issue,” said Lopez Varona, co-director of community dignity campaigns at CPD. “Long-term investments in infrastructure, including building schools and shelters up to code, solidifying the power and water grids, securing hospitals and roads, protecting pensions, and providing safe housing alternatives for low-income families, are just a few of the basic needs that should be immediately championed.”  

Addressing the physical and social toll on the island 

On Dec. 28, 2019, the first of a series of massive earthquakes hit the southern portion of Puerto Rico, coming in at a magnitude of 5.4, killing at least one person, causing numerous injuries and destroying countless buildings. The devastation has continued in subsequent weeks, with 5.8 and 6.4 magnitude earthquakes and dozens of aftershocks. Amid the crisis, federal assistance came weeks after the initial disaster, further worsening already-dire circumstances.  

“The federal government needs to immediately release the billions of dollars in relief money it has on hold since hurricane Maria,” said Lopez Varona. “At the same time, the governor of Puerto Rico and the Fiscal Oversight Management Board need to put forward policies that allow the government to access billions of dollars in funds destined to pay debt so that they are allocated for the reconstruction of the island.” 

Along with the physical destruction of buildings and loss of lives also comes a social, emotional and psychological difficulties for Puerto Ricans. The earthquakes displaced more than 4,000 people with many scared to return to their homes for fear of more to come. Only 20% of schools in Puerto Rico have reopened due to safety concerns, denying children a crucial part of their childhood: education.  

To address this social turmoil, one NCRP member, Mentes Puertorriqueñas en Acción, has activated its civic engagement for disaster response strategy.

They have taken mental health and recreation professionals to tent cities and affected communities as an immediate response, although Executive Director Alejandro Silva Diaz is also thinking about long-term solutions.

“In the long term, we’re matching citizens with reconstruction projects in the south,” Silva Diaz said. “We’re seeking community-based organizations with long-term projects in the south who need interns during the summer to accelerate their projects.”

The current humanitarian crisis is yet another opportunity for the philanthropic sector to show how much it can lead in supporting impacted marginalized communities.

“From Hurricane Maria to these recent earthquakes, the Puerto Rican community has shown a resolve and resiliency that defies imagination. But they shouldn’t have to go it alone,” says NCRP Director of Marketing and Membership Janay Richmond. “When I think of the types of response we’ve seen for other events, like the rebuilding of the famed Notre Dame Cathedral, it makes me dream of a world where not only is the preservation of a beloved church building important, but also where we can’t imagine allowing the kind of prolonged suffering that we are seeing in Puerto Rico. And philanthropy has an opportunity to show us right now that that type of world can exist.” 

Adam Fishbein is NCRP’s membership intern.

As we head into the Dr. Martin Luther King holiday weekend, its natural – maybe even necessary — to reflect on what we are each doing to honor the legacy that he and other civil rights movement leaders left for us to follow. Reflecting on that present for me starts in the past.

I am the blessed son of Dominican immigrants, the youngest of 3 children born to Nelson A. Garcia and Prudencia del Rosario de Fatima Rodriguez Merino. Parents whose various jobs bore little resemblance to the dreams and careers that their potential merited.

Like so many newcomers, their imperfect reality was shaped by the belief that their hard work would create better opportunities for their family. That their most important contribution was to be the best bricklayers to a better future and hope that there was enough room for them to follow.

However, as the old Spanish saying goes, “del dicho al hecho hay mucho trecho” (Loosely translated: There’s a long road between words and deeds.)

And whether they liked it or not, they came to find out that for all their altruistic sacrifices, they couldn’t build it alone. So often, it was left to us as children – and me particularly — to translate their plans into reality.

To not just be their voice in an English-dominated world, but to also ensure that they got back the information they needed to develop their own best voice.

Growing up with a foot in multiple worlds, it’s easy to see how language – and class, race and gender — hides other elements to the stories that people know.

When those elements reflect real people, in real communities, living real lives, you can’t help but want to ensure they see the light of day.

Considering that upbringing, it’s no surprise that I would wind up as a writer and a communicator. No surprise that the son of a seamstress would spend most of his career weaving together ideas, stories and perspectives. No doubt that the child of a ring polisher would be spending his time cleaning up narratives and buffing up speeches for public consumption and distribution.

No other path to walk down than to add my voice to help communicate the important work being done here at NCRP.

For close to 40 years, NCRP has been a key player in the philanthropic sector, encouraging funders to maximize the good they are already doing by being accountable and transparent organizations that employ effective grantmaking practices that benefit marginalized communities.  

They are the kind of close friend who loves you enough to tell you the hard truth when no one else will, but also is the first one to roll up their sleeves to help you do better.

The one who won’t stop pushing you, even when you are resistant, because they see more of your potential than you do.

Our challenging times are in need of sector friends like these. As we have seen in Australia, Brazil and Puerto Rico, our planet is literally on fire and shaking.

More and more, people spend their days in nervous anxiety, afraid that whatever stability they have – economically or socially – could be gone tomorrow.

For far too many people and governments, hate and violence is both a currency and a drug, a way of feeling empowered and accomplishing short-term goals without any regard for the destructive seeds that it sows.

The paradox of the current crisis is that while there is an urgent need to act immediately, sustainable change happens best when behavior is learned, not dictated.

Yes, people of good will must act, but they also have to be given the time and grace to change habits that prevent us from exercising power in a healthy and equitable way.

“Human beings with all their faults and strengths constitute the mechanism of a social movement,” said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in one of his last books, Why We Can’t Wait. “They must make mistakes and learn from them, make more mistakes and learn anew. They must taste defeat as well as success and discover how to live with each. Time and action are the teachers.”

If time and action are the teachers for sustained social change, philanthropy has both an opportunity and responsibility to help craft the safe spaces where these professors teach.

With the help of critical friends like NCRP, they can help create and facilitate the kind of classrooms that communities – across race, class, gender, sexual orientation and language – need to make this world better.

Classrooms that make our road to a more just and equitable future a bit easier to travel. 

Elbert Garcia is NCRP’s director of strategic communications. Follow @ElbertGarciaFl and @NCRP on Twitter.