Climate change and subsequent damage to water, land and clean air affects women differently than men.

Women walk farther when water and firewood runs out, work harder for less when erratic weather patterns wreak havoc on crops and die at higher rates when natural disasters strike.

Solutions to climate change exist on the frontlines of the battle to save our planet. Grassroots women leaders are already stepping up to the challenge, but don’t have access to resources to support their work.

There is a shocking gap in funding for women’s environmental leadership. Less than 0.2% of all foundation funding goes to women’s environmental action.

Last year, Global Greengrants Fund and Prospera International Network of Women’s Funds released a report titled, “Our Voices, Our Environment: The State of Funding for Women’s Environmental Action.”

The publication is the first comprehensive mapping of funding in support of women’s environmental action.

It includes case studies and success stories of women-led environmental projects, and guidance from women’s rights activists for funders that want to strengthen their existing grantmaking and take further action.

The report not only shares data on the current state of funding, but also makes recommendations to funders of how to offer support:

1. Leverage greater resources for funding, which requires an increase in understanding from funders of how to fund at the intersection of women and environment.

Global Greengrants Fund and Prospera are supporting funders to build capacity, knowledge and resources to engage with this issue.

We are helping funders learn how best to get involved at this nexus by leading a learning community with many of the top foundations and funders in philanthropy, and sharing information about how to achieve both gender and environmental justice.

Many funders interviewed in the aforementioned report share common challenges when considering whether and how to fund women’s environmental action, including where limited resources can make the greatest impact.

2. Funders need to develop a gender and environmental justice analysis of their grantmaking portfolios, and to support organizations and initiatives doing this work.

One way for funders to do this is to interact with organizations that are leading the charge.

In March 2019, International Rivers and The Nepal Water Conservation Foundation hosted the Women and Rivers Congress in Nagarkot, Nepal.

The congress brought together nearly 100 women from more than 30 countries, including many funders, to recognize and expand the leadership of women protecting rivers.

The attendees not only put together a roadmap for action supporting women worldwide protecting freshwater ecosystems, but also released a joint statement following the event.

The statement emphasized their commitment to ensuring women’s leadership in decision-making at all levels over freshwater resources, and to strengthening and building alliances.

Similarly, in Abuja, Nigeria, last winter, Corporate Accountability and Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria hosted a summit bringing together water justice leaders across the globe including women leaders from Flint, Michigan; Pittsburgh; and the NAACP.

The resulting learning and action plans, explicitly uplifted the vision of women water justice leaders convened at the summit and will prioritize stopping water privatization, as well as backing community leadership in advocating their right to clean water.

Foundations like the Wallace Global Fund not only supported and attended the convening, but were also keen to explore how the summit could serve as a catalyst for more funders to support resulting initiatives.

These examples stand out as ways that a few organizations and funders are stepping up to bring women into the conversation to protect the planet and are creating spaces to listen and learn from one another.

Yet, to overcome climate change, we need even more people, including more women, and more funders involved.

As the threat of a climate crisis grows with each passing day, Global Greengrants Fund and Prospera are calling on others in the philanthropic space to close the funding gap at the intersection of women and environment to support collective action.

Funders must take the lead in understanding how to support women and the environment, and investing where it is most needed.

Terry Odendahl is president & CEO. Follow @TerryOdendahl and @GreengrantsFund on Twitter.

As communities and grassroots organizations across the country continue to fight for equity and justice, many grantmakers and donors are looking for optimal ways to support them.

“Now is not the time for business as usual. Frontline activists and organizations across the country and the world continue to fight for dignity, security, inclusion and a thriving future for all,” wrote Aaron Dorfman, chief executive of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

The newly released October edition of “Responsive Philanthropyoffers grantmakers and philanthropists examples of ways they can align their giving and practices with these transformative efforts.

Philanthropy for change, not charity

Wes Moore, chief executive of Robin Hood, discusses why community-grounded policy efforts are essential in the foundation’s fight against poverty in New York City.

How philanthropy can help us be better as a nation

Rick Williams, chief executive of Sobrato Family Foundation, reflects on his 20 years in philanthropy and suggests 10 priority action items for the sector to help America reach its full potential.

The power of bridging issue silos through funding collaboratives

Unbound Philanthropy’s Taryn Higashi interviews Anita Khashu of Four Freedoms Fund, Bridgit Antoinette Evans of Pop Culture Collaborative and Aleyamma Mathew of Collaborative Fund for Women’s Safety and Dignity to discuss the role of cross-issue collaboratives and why they’re important for grantmaker impact.

I was born in the U.S. to Jamaican immigrants and raised in Brooklyn, New York, in one of the largest West Indian immigrant communities outside of the Caribbean. 

I was fortunate to attend public schools that reflected my cultural background and that of the diverse community I lived in. I was taught to embrace my dual heritage without fear or shame, and to embrace the diversity of my classmates, my community and my country. 

Only 37 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that a public education could not be denied on the basis of immigration status. They cited education as a primary means of instilling “the values on which our society rests.” I agree. 

But what are those values now when hostile immigration policies derail learning for K-12 students, reinforce barriers to higher education and threaten the progress of immigrant families?

For millions of immigrants in mixed status households the ruling is an empty promise. 

It seems there’s an implicit understanding in education philanthropy that education justice cannot be divested from its intersections with language, culture, race and immigration status. 

A recent survey suggests education philanthropy has shifted focus from K-12 academics to strategies that support the social, emotional and cultural needs of all students. 

But according to NCRP’s Movement Investment Project report on the State of Foundation Grantmaking for the Pro-Immigrant Movement data show that most of the support for the pro-immigrant movement went to policy advocacy and litigation organizations, and that total funding for the movement is less than that for leisure sports.

Funding for immigrants and refugees represent barely 1% of total funding from 1,000 of the largest U.S. foundations between 2011 and 2015, and 11 funders provided half of all pro-immigration movement funding between 2014 and 2016. 

As anti-immigrant rhetoric spurs violent attacks on immigrant communities and families are torn apart, it’s imperative that philanthropy see that investing in the needs of whole learners means recognizing the needs of immigrant students. 

Immigrant justice is an education issue.

One in 4 children attending U.S. public schools live in immigrant households. Seventy-two percent of U.S. born and naturalized children live with at least 1 undocumented parent. 

One million children in the U.S. are undocumented, and nearly 100,000 undocumented students graduate from the U.S. high schools annually.

Education funders undoubtedly serve immigrant communities even if they do not necessarily consider themselves immigrant justice funders. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has stoked fear within immigrant communities for the dehumanizing treatment of undocumented people held in detention centers and family separations at the border.

Immigrant students regardless of legal status have reported fearing that they or a loved one may be detained by ICE agents. 

Fears of deportation have contributed to: poor academic performance; anxiety and behavioral issues; and fluctuations in student attendance. 

Perhaps the most devastating blow dealt to immigrant justice and public education was the rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Obama-era pro-immigrant policy that offered deportation protection, driver’s and occupational licenses, work permits and higher education opportunities for more than 700,000 immigrants including 20,000 educators across the country. 

Costs of college tuition places higher education virtually out of reach for the 30% of immigrant families living below the federal poverty line. 

Few states offer in-state tuition or state funding to undocumented immigrants, and, when they do, it is an extension of pro-immigrant policies such as DACA. Undocumented students do not qualify for federal aid.

These barriers to education equity are antithetical to the promise of justice and opportunity for immigrant children upon which Plyler v. Doe was decided. Lifting these barriers should be a high priority for education funders committed to an education system that serves all students.

How education funders can support undocumented immigrant students 

The variables affecting educational outcomes of immigrant communities should directly inform grantmaking strategies that are intended to support the whole learner. 

Here are 3 steps funders can take to be more responsive to the needs of immigrant students and communities:

1. Support the efforts of schools to protect undocumented students.

In response to ICE’s law enforcement practices school leaders have partnered with local nonprofit organizations such as Immschools to be more responsive to the challenges posed to immigrant communities and the students they serve.

Find out how you, as a funder, can collaborate with organizations on the ground who are empowering these schools to safeguard the education of all their students. It’s imperative that these schools have the resources they need to legally support and advocate for their immigrant students.

2. Give long-term flexible and capacity building support to frontline groups.

Grassroots organizations and advocacy groups are the first line of defense for immigrant communities at risk but they are largely underfunded. 

Invest in capacity building and immigrant-led organizing in the most at-risk areas so these groups have the resources to mobilize communities navigating the volatile landscape of immigration status.

3. Invest in the pro-immigrant movement beyond grantmaking.

The pro-immigrant and -refugee movement need voices as much as they need funding. Leverage your organizational resources to make space at the table for immigrant movement leaders. 

Speak out against deportations that dismantle families, make sure your investments do not support immigrant detention centers and surveillance, and call on your peers to do the same. 

Support the pro-immigrant movement groups in accessing 501(c)4 funds

The future of immigration reform in the U.S. depends on informed voter decisions. Even with limited capacity and resources pro-immigrant organizations have shown they can make great strides in promoting pro-immigrant candidates for elected office. 

With access to 501(c)4 funding the organizations will have greater flexibility to lobby for and against legislation, distribute voter guides that compare candidates based on their immigrant stances and organize voter registration drives. 

The Jamaican national motto says “Out of many, one people” in celebration of Jamaica’s multicultural roots. 

The U.S.’ de facto national motto is the Latin “E pluribus Unum,” which translates to “Out of many, one.”

My heritage is a reminder that there is strength in diversity, and what threatens the stability of immigrant communities threatens all of us. 

I challenge education philanthropy to consider the needs of our most vulnerable immigrant communities and support movements led by and for those on the frontlines. 

Nichia McFarlane is NCRP’s events intern. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Image by Molly Adams. Used under Creative Commons license.

Last month, shots rang out in my beloved Brownsville. I’ve worked with the Brownsville community in Brooklyn, New York, for a decade, both on the ground – shoulder to shoulder with residents – and now, as a funder. In that decade, the news of shootings came all too frequently.

In the past, Brownsville was known for having the highest crime rates in New York City. But for those of us who have been working together, we had felt that we had turned the tide.

Investments in the neighborhood had increased, and crime had gone down.

And then the mass shooting happened on Saturday, July 27, “Old Timers Day,” an annual neighborhood family reunion.

On this day, there is an unspoken pact that all violence is put on hold. The mass shooting was a grim reminder that there is still work to be done.

That Sunday, The New York Times published an article about the death of Davion Powell, a teenager in Crown Heights, not too far from Brownsville, highlighting the nuanced nature of violence.

I read it as a work plan for change: The article highlighted key points in Davion’s life when the system failed him, when funders failed systems and organizations, and when government failed to care.

Any violence, either in Davion’s life or in the Brownsville neighborhood, is a manifestation of the breakdown in systems working together and the manifestation of deficits in investments in people, communities and neighborhoods.

This weekend of violence in the borough that I have called home for nearly a decade was followed by 3 subsequent mass shootings in California, Texas and Ohio in recent days.

The rate of these mass shootings have forced me to reflect on the role of philanthropy and its role in addressing violence.

When I first joined the New York State Health Foundation as a program officer, one of the first grants that I gave was to a violence prevention organization in Brownsville.

Having worked there for years, I had seen firsthand what violence does to a community. I brought with me one of the most important lessons from working on the ground: Violence is a barrier to physical activity, educational attainment, childhood development – to all the social determinants of health.

My reflections have led to some points that I hope other funders will keep in mind:

1. We need to take our own advice.

For a while, collective impact was all the rage in the nonprofit world. The idea of having a “community quarterback” as a convener in a community was an approach that numerous funders got behind.

But funders can use the collective impact approach across philanthropy, too. When was the last time that we had a deep, consistent relationship with other funders, beyond a specific project or board cycle?

It was with this in mind that I developed the Brownsville Funders Collective, a collective of 7 funders who have interest in or are funding work in Brownsville.

We get together regularly to discuss key issues in the neighborhood, potential funding projects and key challenges.

We open it up to community experts to help shape our direction. It’s not that different than what we ask our grantees to do.

But this idea of organizing within our field is still novel. It needs to be the norm.

2. We need to be in solidarity with the work.

What does solidarity look like? It looks less like approaching the work with the mindset of “I not only believe that I am better than you, but I believe that I must intervene to stop you from becoming an even bigger threat and problem than you already are,” as Trabian Shorters wrote.

It looks more like the mindset of Lila Watson’s take: “If you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”

Do we see our grantees as the “other”? Or do we see the grantees as manifestations of ourselves? Unless we see ourselves in our grantees, and vice versa, we will continue to perpetuate the cycles of violence in this country. 

3. We need to change who we are as a field.

Part of the unintentional “othering” of our grantees comes from the fact that many folks who work in philanthropy have never experienced the problems that we fund, nor have they been a part of the solution.

Hiring folks who have worked on the ground, like myself, is a start. Valuing the knowledge of grantees beyond impact and results is even better. The North Star Fund has a great process around redefining expertise.

4. We need to iterate.

What the article about Davion highlighted so astutely were the very real nuances that lead to violence, and sometimes, death.

As funders setting up initiatives that span 5 to 10 years (if we’re lucky), with the answers already in mind and rigid funding guidelines, we leave little room for learning or flexibility as the work evolves.

Let’s build in formal grantmaking processes for evolution. The Equitable Evaluation Initiative is a resource that can help with this work.

We run the risk of being reductive to addressing violence if we as funders fail to challenge ourselves to be in solidarity with the people affected by our work.

We need to widen the aperture to see the people and places, not just the issues. If we don’t, we run the risk of more weeks like the last.

Nupur Chaudhury is a program officer at the New York State Health Foundation. Follow @CautionChaud and @nys_health on Twitter.

Photo by Charly W. Karl, used under Creative Commons license.

The president of the United States, one of the country’s major political parties and its most-watched news network have stoked a long-simmering anti-immigrant white nationalist movement, one of whose pledged adherents murdered 22 people at a grocery store this weekend in an attack explicitly meant to maim and kill immigrants and their families.  

Anti-immigrant hatred is not new to this country. But the way the president, his political party and their cable news enablers have used it to gin up fear of immigrants based on malignant lies is unprecedented. 

Anti-immigrant hatred is dangerous for all Americans, not just immigrants. The ongoing campaign of white nationalist violence and threatening rhetoric negatively impacts us all.  

The body count increased dramatically with this weekend’s tragedy, making clear that the target on immigrants will always result in collateral damage. 

Immigrants are part of every community, big and small. When immigrants are threatened, our schools are less enriching, our communities are less healthy and our economy suffers.  

Immigrants are our family members, neighbors, teachers, doctors, nurses, entrepreneurs and community leaders.  

The rhetoric used by white nationalist leaders, including the president, is meant to intimidate and discourage. 

Only a grassroots, nationwide movement that is unabashedly pro-immigrant can keep our communities safe from the growing threat of white nationalist violence.  

And yet, foundation funding for a pro-immigrant movement has not even come close to matching the threat.  

Between 2011 and 2016, just 1.3% of grantmaking by U.S. foundations was for pro-immigrant work. In 2016 – the most recent year of data available – foundations gave more to leisure sports like badminton, sailing and golf than they did to support immigrant communities.  

And, while NCRP has seen preliminary evidence that foundation support for the pro-immigrant movement has increased since 2016 when Donald Trump ran a successful anti-immigrant campaign for president, it is exceedingly unlikely the level of funding has increased enough to be commensurate with the threat. 

The obstruction in Washington is meant to make the vast majority of Americans who are pro-immigrant feel powerless. Remember, foundation CEO’s and trustees, you have power and you can choose to use it.  

The threat this coordinated assault on immigrants poses to all Americans requires an unprecedented response by foundation leaders.  

“Next grant cycle” won’t be soon enough to keep our communities safe. We cannot afford the luxury of test grants or exploratory research. Five or 6% payout may be justifiable in ordinary times, but this is no ordinary time. 

Here are some actions you can take: 

1. Examine your current docket of grantees. Where and how can grantees be encouraged to collaborate with pro-immigrant groups in their communities? How can you help current grantees follow pro-immigrant movement groups’ lead?  

2. Make an investment in the long-term safety and health of our communities by exceeding ordinary payout ceilings. Your endowment can weather an emergency response to urgent needs. Move that money to pro-immigrant movement groups as soon as possible. Expedite grant application and review processes; lean on your staff and board to think creatively about how to take bold action with integrity to your institution’s values and mission. 

3. Look to field leaders for advice on how and where to move more pro-immigrant resources. FIRM, We Are All America, the Four Freedoms Fund, United We Dream, the Security and Rights Collaborative, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, the Rise Together Fund and NCRP’s many pro-immigrant nonprofit member organizations are good people with whom to start a conversation. 

4. Talk to your peers about their role in changing the conversation. Foundation CEOs and trustees respond to each other’s example and take seriously their peers’ advice. Work your network. Help them understand the extraordinary circumstances the country finds itself in and how they can use all the resources and influence at their disposal to fight for what’s right. 

Foundation CEOs and trustees are entrusted with resources meant for the public good. Their positions of authority at grantmaking institutions make them civic and community leaders whose voice carries far.  

In a time of escalating rhetoric that has led to real violence, CEOs and trustees owe it to their communities to ask themselves a few fundamental questions:  

1. What good is a multi-million-dollar endowment if it can’t be put to use in times of emergency?  

2. How can you leverage your role as community leader, convener and conscience-keeper to advance a pro-immigrant message that will ensure we are all safer and healthier in the long run?  

3. What do you hope history will say about your tenure as guardian of your institution’s values when it looks back on this uniquely perilous time in America? 

You have the power to begin answering those questions for yourself, for your institution and for your community. Don’t let that power go to waste. 

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

With World Refugee Day last month, and May being National Foster Care Month, now is the perfect time to bring more awareness to the increasing number of migrant children entering the foster care system within the U.S.

Of the 10,000s of referrals the Office of Refugee Resettlement receives every year for migrant children to be placed in foster care, almost 5,000 enter the system, in addition to the almost 500,000 U.S.-born children in foster care.

While the reasons these children are entering the system vary, 1 thing is certain: The risks associated with aging out of the system are even higher for migrant children, especially those of color.

According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, on average, more than 68% of migrant children without parents or guardians who came to the U.S. from 2014 and 2018 were between the ages of 15 to 17 years old.

In most states, once a child turns 18, they are no longer considered a ward of the state, and depending on a child’s immigration or asylum status, a child may be more likely to experience a lack of educational opportunities, homelessness and unemployment.

In addition, racial and ethnic discrimination in America continues to run rampant. There are political, economic and social barriers that exist for people of color in this country, and the development opportunities for migrant children of color are left unprotected. Children below the age of 18 have the least power and wealth.

Discrimination may occur at the institutional level because children of color are less likely to receive mental health services, have fewer visits with their parents or siblings whom they have been separated from and are less likely to receive services designed to reunite them with relatives.

On an individual level, migrant children may face verbal ridicule, harassment and physical assault from their peers, whether that be in school, foster family placement or a group-home setting.

Studies have shown that a child’s perception of direct discrimination can have a plethora of negative psychological, physical, academic and social consequences.

Thus, it is disappointing that less than 1% of funding for aging out of foster care was specifically designated to children of color since 2014, with a bulk of that grantmaking occurring in 2016.

Without taking a strong stance on supporting racial equity within the foster care system, funders continue to add to the disenfranchisement of children of color. 

Funders have the power to change the lives of these children facing such complex issues, enlarged by their legal status and racial background, by:

  • Funding advocacy efforts. Increasing funds to efforts such as rallies and workshops not only helps educate the public about the challenges faced by migrant children of color aging out of the foster care system, but it can also inspire more individuals to engage in the movement.
  • Promoting youth-led organizing. Funders can help amplify their voices by investing in youth leadership programs that train young people to engage in collective action and make substantive contributions to their communities, such as knowledge of their rights within the U.S. foster care system.
  • Designate more funding towards migrant children of color. Because migrant children of color may experience the same challenges as other migrants and children of color within the foster care system, it is important to recognize that they need additional support. Funders should review their grant portfolios to see how to support this group within current grantmaking practices.

Funders can take action against this inequity and push for a more diverse and inclusive society by backing those who not only provide resources to migrant children of color, but also raises their own voices.

Sabrina Laverty is NCRP’s research intern. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Grantmakers and donors need to support frontline immigrant and refugee justice efforts now because lives are at stake.

As a Jewish American, one of the most haunting experiences I’ve ever had was looking at the display of hundreds of children’s shoes at the U.S. Holocaust museum. They represent the 1.5 million children who were detained and murdered by the Nazis. Some died in the gas chambers, some from infectious disease born of camp conditions, some of starvation.

A poster saying "Never Again Means Now. Jews Say Close the Camps."

Jews and allies at the Cannon House Office Building’s Rotunda on July 9, 2019, to say #NeverAgainIsNow. Photo by Timi Gerson.

I don’t know the names of the first 7 Jewish children who died in Hitler’s Germany. I do know the names of the first 7 migrant children who died in Trump’s American concentration camps: 1-year old Mariee Juarez, 2-year-old Wilmer Josué Ramírez Vásquez, 7-year-old Jakelin Caal Maquín, 8-year old Felipe Gomez Alonzo, 10-year old Darrlyn Cristabel Cordova-Valle, 15-year old Carlos Gregorio Hernández Vasquez and 16-year old Juan de León Gutiérrez.

Philanthropy: What are we doing today to stop another child from dying tomorrow?

It’s not a new story.

Black and Native American communities have faced family separation, state-sponsored violence and genocidal policies since this country’s founding. The Obama Administration deported between 3-5 million immigrants and helped create the infrastructure that the Trump administration has weaponized.

Black immigrants are 7-9% of the migrant population, but make up 25% of those in detention who face deportation. A large percentage of the migrants and refugees from Central America are non-Spanish speaking indigenous peoples.

Excuses are not acceptable.

In our interviews for the Movement Investment Project, movement leaders told us that funders often tell grantseekers that they “don’t have an immigration portfolio.”

This excuse rings hollow in the face of a national armed enforcement infrastructure that detains and imprisons our immigrant neighbors and asylum seekers fleeing violence. In the words of rabbi and civil rights activist Abraham Joshua Heschel, “Indifference to evil is worse than evil itself, that in a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

Some local funders may feel that this is a “federal issue” for Congress to fix, and that, while terrible and sad, immigration “doesn’t fit” with their local grantmaking goals and priorities.

But there are detention centers in every state, including yours. The Trump administration continues to push for a citizenship questions to the 2020 U.S. census. Republican efforts to undercount marginalized people (embodied by, but not limited to the citizenship question) will have an impact on your community from health care to education to transportation and beyond.

You have resources and power now is the time to use them.

My grandmother Sophie was 11 years old when she arrived in the United States, after a year spent walking across Europe as a refugee. She, her mother Esther and little brother Moishe arrived in a migrant caravan by sea, part of an exodus of Jews fleeing brutal pogroms in Eastern Europe. Her journey was possible because of financial support from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS).

Years later, during the McCarthy era, the U.S. government tried to strip her of her naturalized citizenship and deport her. She fought back through organizing and with the solidarity of neighbors and allies. She won.

I named my daughter after my grandmother because I want her to grow up knowing that our immigrant neighbors those that arrived here 30 years ago and those that arrived here yesterday deserve our support and solidarity just as her namesake did. That families belong together. That our own family exists because people with power used it to support my grandmother as a child migrant and as a mother fighting to stay with her children.

U.S. foundations spend more than $60 billion in annual grantmaking. Historically, barely 1% of it has gone to support immigrants and refugees. Philanthropic support for immigrant and refugee justice is lowest in the regions of our country the Southeast and the Southwest – where ICE detentions and deportations are highest.

While more funding is flowing in light of current crises, it is not enough especially when Congress recently gave billions more to border enforcement and detention agencies. Frontline grassroots organizations need flexible, long-term support to meet immediate challenges and to build power not only for today’s fight, but also to build tomorrow’s future.

Funders have more than dollars to give. There are at least 3 concrete additional ways we can support immigrant and refugee communities under attack:

1. Connect nonprofits working for immigrant and refugee justice to new sources of funding and decision-makers in your city, state or region.

2. Amplify movement advocacy demands including the demand to #closethecamps on social media, in your newsletters and publications and in the press.

3. Divest from corporations that run detention centers and prisons, following the example of funder peers such as the Edward W. Hazen Foundation.

If you are still wondering what can you do, the answers are simple: Hundreds of immigrant justice movement leaders have told us exactly what they need from us. NCRP has many additional resources that can help grantmakers and donors effectively support the immigrant and refugee justice efforts across the country.

The question is not what to do, but if we will do it.

Timi Gerson is vice president and chief content officer of NCRP. Follow @NCRP and @timigerson on Twitter.

Header image: On July 9, 2019, Jews and allies at the Cannon House Office Building say #NeverAgainIsNow. Photo by Timi Gerson.

Around the table were a mother, her daughters, the attorney and myself. Tearfully, the mother shared how their lives had been threatened by gangs who were controlling their neighborhood in Honduras.

One of the gang members wanted to force a relationship with one of her daughters. Her daughter’s “best friend” had refused similar advances and was killed a few days later. Terrified, the mother grabbed her daughters and fled.

They trekked nearly 2,000 miles through Guatemala and Mexico, finally getting to the U.S.-Mexico border, where, as the mom put it, they thought they had finally arrived into the arms of a compassionate nation.

We were sitting inside a trailer that had originally been set up as an influx facility to accommodate the massive hiring of U.S. Border Patrol agents after 9/11 at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.

On that day, armed officers were sitting a few feet away from us in the brightly lit room filled with other women and children, sitting at small tables or on the floor.

It was the summer of 2014 and, like now, we were seeing a large number of Central American families from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala fleeing from insufferable conditions and seeking safety at our southern border.

The Obama administration responded by converting these make-shift barracks into a family detention center that could hold up to 800 women and children.

I was there helping interpret for civil rights attorneys who were taking declarations from Honduran, Guatemalan and Salvadoran women who had experienced abuse and due process violations at the hands of Border Patrol agents.

Instead of welcoming arms, Border Patrol agents arrested her family and then shoved them into a cold holding cell, telling them they were going to be deported back right away.

They were forced to sleep on concrete floors, drawing as much warmth as they could from a thin mylar sheet.

The lights were on 24/7 and there was little to no privacy when they needed to use the bathroom behind a short wall in the same holding cell.

At no time had they been asked by agents why they had come to the U.S. or whether or not they feared returning to Honduras.

Some of the questions we asked included whether or not she had sought police protection in Honduras, which prompted the mother to talk about how the police was ineffective in dealing with the gangs and were often in cahoots with them.

She then reached across and held her daughter’s hand, paused and said that even if police were willing to help, they probably wouldn’t because her daughter was a lesbian and they had failed to respond to the murder of her “best friend.”

It didn’t take long to note the intersectionality of our social justice movements.

For nearly 2 decades, I have been an activist for immigrant, border and LGBTQ rights, but this was the 1st time I came face-to-face with the courage and profound hope of a young family seeking a better life and whose story stood at an intersection of oppression.

Since that time, I have seen many examples of this courage. And, through this work, I have also seen the intersections of oppression that rob people, including children, of their dignity, well-being and, sometimes, their lives.

Just as the LGBTQ community has been criminalized to rob us of our rights, freedom and dignity, so have immigrant and refugee communities.

In spite of the fact that humans have migrated since the beginning of time, we have treated refugees seeking safety at our southern border – many of whom are members of the LGBTQ community – poorly.

Under this administration, anti-immigrant policies have gotten exponentially worse. They’ve been denied entry, locked up in overcrowded and unsanitary cells for days, provided inadequate or untimely medical attention, which has resulted in 6 child deaths since last November, and sent back to Mexican northern cities to await their immigration hearings for months if not years.

Another despicable practice has been “metering,” which forces thousands of people to put their name on a list and wait in Mexico before they can even apply for asylum at our ports of entry.

In desperation, many attempt to cross at places that put their lives at risk, as witnessed recently with the deaths of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, 25, and his 23-month-old daughter, Valeria.

For the LGBTQ community, waiting in Mexico exposes them to violence and larger threats to their lives, because there are few welcoming services and shelters.

When I worked for a civil rights group in New Mexico, we met regularly with immigrants at the Otero County Processing Center near Chaparral, New Mexico, to assess whether detainees were treated humanely and not held indefinitely.

We would also file complaints with Immigration and Customs Enforcement because transgender women were placed in isolation cells for their so-called “protection.”

This is the same facility where Johana Medina Leon, a transgender woman, recently did not receive adequate medical care, resulting in her death.

Under this administration, we experience daily assaults on the LGBTQ, immigrant, people of color, people with disabilities, Muslim and Jewish communities.

The assaults have been normalized by a president who uses discriminatory rhetoric and criminalizes people to make it more acceptable to bring harm and abuse against us. Let’s not forget what he said about Mexicans during his campaign.

As a woman, immigrant, lesbian, Mexican-U.S. dual national and border community member, I understand these intersections well.

My hope is that one day our border communities are recognized for what they are: a place of encounter, hope and opportunity.

In short, we need a New Border Vision that demands good border governance that expands public safety for all, considers human life and human rights paramount, and is welcoming to border residents and newcomers.

How philanthropy can help

Funders can support the New Border Vision by:

  • Funding organizations advocating for Congress to stop funding Trump’s anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ agenda and to put forth policies that become a model for good border governance.
  • Supporting Southern Border Communities Coalition’s efforts to bring the voices of border communities to Washington, D.C., to put a human face on the effects of hyper-militarization of our home and to demand a whole-of-society and whole-of-government response to the humanitarian crisis we are witnessing at our border.

At the end of the day, our communities must firmly stand against all the intersections of oppression. We are stronger when we are together.

Vicki B. Gaubeca, who lives in Tucson, Arizona, is the director of the Southern Border Communities Coalition, which brings together rights organizations from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, to promote policies and solutions that improve the quality of life of border communities and newcomers. Follow @SBCCoalition and @NCRP on Twitter.

Rainbow flags blanket the country in the memory and spirit of resistance that sparked the 1969 Stonewall Riots and a national movement for LGBTQ equality.

But in the midst of global celebrations of sexuality and gender diversity, transgender women of color still disproportionately face blatant discrimination, poor health, and economic outcomes and violence that are rarely reported in the mainstream media.

Philanthropic funding for the transgender community has increased exponentially in recent years but it’s not nearly enough to combat the multi-layered marginalization of transgender women of color and Trump-era attempts to roll back the few protections that exist.

Trans women of color exist on the frontlines of the country’s deepest social issues.

This year Marsha P. Johnson, a Black transgender woman, LGBTQ activist and sex worker remembered as a key player in the events leading up to the Stonewall riots, will be commemorated in New York City in a historic move for the LGBTQ community and gender nonconforming people.

But women who are like Marsha today – Black, low-income and living openly outside the norms of gender and sexuality expression – are still among the most marginalized people in the country.

Transphobia intersects with all other forms of oppression. Transgender people of color experience worse social and economic outcomes than white transgender women and the general population.

Disparities abound for Black transgender women. While 14% of all transgender women live with HIV, 44% of Black transgender women live with HIV.

Discrimination and harassment in the workplace contributes to 38% of Black transgender women experiencing homelessness and extreme poverty compared to 9% of non-transgender Black women.

Navigating multiple systems of oppression takes a toll: A staggering 45% of Black transgender women have reported attempting suicide.

Among the most alarming disparities: Eighty percent of anti-trans homicides are Black transgender women, and, of the 7 transgender women killed in 2019, all were Black transgender women.

The impact on the community is devastating. The average life expectancy of Black transgender women is only 35 years.

Philanthropy’s investment in the transgender community is promising but more needs to be done.

Philanthropic investment in the transgender community has increased from less than $4 million in 2012 to $22 million in 2017, a major step in an equitable direction.

However, only 12% of all LGBTQ funding went to transgender issues, and only 3 cents was donated to the transgender community for every $100 U.S. foundations spent in 2017.

That is simply not enough to curb the Trump administration’s LGBTQ erasure and attacks on transgender rights.

Recent actions to roll back Obama-era protections include:

  • A rule allowing homeless shelters receiving Housing and Urban Development funds to discriminate on the basis of gender expression.
  • A rule published by the Department of Health and Human Services that does not recognize gender identity as a means to sex discrimination.
  • Efforts to narrow legal definitions of gender and sex to weaken federal protection laws against gender discrimination and hate crimes.
  • Eroding protections for transgender students.
  • A transgender ban on military service.

How funders can lead with the transgender community

Funders must be mindful of falling into the rainbow washing of corporations that call for the bare minimum solidarity to appear inclusive but do not extend opportunities or meaningful long-term support to the transgender community.  

Here are 3 steps funders can take to immediately address systemic discrimination towards the transgender community:

1. Invest in community-led organizing, nonprofit advocacy and civic engagement on behalf of Black transgender women.

Most grassroots advocacy groups for the transgender community are small organizations with limited resources.

But being led by and for the transgender community gives them the cultural competency to allocate resources at the community level, where it is needed most, and successfully advocate for gender recognition nationally.

Discover their out of reach priorities and fund them. Support capacity building, long-term operational support and loosen barriers to funding.

2. Encourage transgender and gender nonconforming leadership in schools and health institutions.

The Trump administration’s legislative assault on transgender bodies is being played out in hospitals and in schools.

As protections are rescinded and the definition of gender is under attack, it’s critical that transgender women of color occupy leadership roles in these spaces to hold school and health officials accountable to all students and patients.

3. Support the Equality Act. The U.S House of Representatives passed the Equality Act in May. It would provide sweeping legislative protection on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

This amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would outlaw discrimination of the LGBTQ communities in public and private sectors at the federal level and protect the LGBTQ community under the hate crime statute.

As the Trump administration gears up to fight back in the Senate, find out how you can support efforts to get the bill passed.

Transgender women of color have always existed on the frontlines of LGBTQ liberation. But visibility is not liberation, economic stability, social inclusion or health equity.

As Pride Month comes to a close, let’s not forget to extend the full capacity of our support to the most marginalized in our communities.

Nichia McFarlane is NCRP’s events intern. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.