In January 2018, I had the opportunity to visit the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego with the grantees of The J.M. Kaplan Fund’s Innovation Prize. Among the vibrant paintings on the border fence near Tijuana, there is a mural of an upside-down U.S. flag created by a group of deported veterans to symbolize the distress of their plight.

These immigrant veterans, many of whom were honorably discharged, were deported based on convictions for crimes that occurred after their service. Like many soldiers, these deported veterans deal with post-war trauma, unemployment and other economic stressors, which often lead to their encounter with the criminal justice system. 

However, unlike U.S. citizen soldiers, their convictions lead to their deportations, a result of the harsh 1996 immigration laws that expanded mandatory detention and deportation for a vast list of crimes deemed “aggravated felonies.” These laws overhauled immigration enforcement and laid the foundation for the enormous deportation machine that now exists in this country.

The system of mass deportation depends on the punitive and racial discrimination at the heart of the criminal justice system, the foundations of which were laid during the 1980s war on drugs. The policies passed during this time perpetuated racial discrimination against African-Americans leading to the mass incarceration we know today.

This steep rise in mass incarceration during the last 40 years has greatly affected the lives of racially marginalized communities, especially Black and Latinx Americans who together constitute 59 percent of the prison population. This punitive transformation of the domestic policy has permeated the immigration enforcement system, which criminalizes the immigrant population by making their mere existence in the country “illegal.” This has gone hand-in-hand with a proliferating narrative that sees all immigrants as “others” — “criminals,” “gang-members” or “terrorists” who need to be penalized and discarded.

The immigration policies introduced by the Bush administration after 9/11 were dominated by a national security lens. This gave rise to new border security and law enforcement initiatives that increased the use of state and local law enforcement for immigration. With increased enforcement, the budget and staff of the enforcement agencies also rose dramatically, almost doubling within the next decade.

Obama’s “felons, not families” policy prioritized the deportation of undocumented immigrants with criminal histories. These policies have not only criminalized whole communities of people but have pitted them against each other. Immigrant communities have defensively tried to separate themselves from the so-called “criminal” population by exceptionalizing themselves as hard working and entrepreneurial.

Of course, an entire population of millions cannot be all “exceptional” or all “criminal.” The punitive policies and rhetoric also ignore the fact that those charged with crimes may also have families and that they are most often incarcerated because of the disproportionate racial targeting by law enforcement. Black immigrant communities, for example, make up only 7 percent of the immigrant population in the U.S., but represent 20 percent of immigrants facing deportation on criminal grounds.

Since January 2017, the Trump administration has brought an unrelenting series of policy changes, which have tremendously affected the lives of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The new policies have greatly affected the foreign-born residents of the country, with the banning of majority-Muslim country nationals; with biased and escalated immigration enforcement; and the termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and many Temporary Protected Status programs.

The relentless anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from the Trump administration has also created a climate of xenophobia, Islamophobia and fear. More than ever, immigrants and their families across the country live in fear of being detained, deported or subject to hate crimes.

In the last decade, we have seen growing pushback against mass incarceration as well as bipartisan support for criminal justice reform. Nonetheless, we have also seen the same carceral practices reflected and replicated in the immigration space. Immigrants face growing incarceration through escalating detentions and are overrepresented in prisons and profiled by law enforcement.

The private companies profiting from mass incarceration within the criminal justice system are also profiting from detention of immigrants, and have received the boon of a congressionally mandated bed quota of 34,000 immigration detention beds on a daily basis.

In these historic and challenging times, there is a tremendous need to center our analysis of these issues within the lens of “mass criminalization” of communities of color. We have a unique opportunity to connect immigrants to growing activism around decarceration, divestment and restorative justice that challenges discriminatory policing, racial profiling and prison privatization.

Immigrant justice advocates and those leading the struggles against mass incarceration are already leading collaborations. We, as funders, also need to challenge ourselves to come out of our siloed areas and enhance our understanding of how these systems connect and affect all impacted communities. 

J.M. Kaplan Fund’s Social Justice program focuses on supporting immigrant-serving organizations and those working to transform the criminal justice system. The fund also supports organizations that serve individuals impacted by both criminal justice and the immigration enforcement systems.

It is now time to unite the goals, the learnings and the struggles that are led by and focused on those who are directly affected by the deep tentacles of systems addicted to criminalization and incarceration.

Prachi Patankar joined the J.M.Kaplan Fund in 2017 as the program director for social justice. She plays an instrumental role in shaping the foundation’s grant making strategies for criminal justice reform and immigrant rights work, locally and nationally. Follow @PatankarPrachi and @TheJMKaplanFund on Twitter.

Photo by Jobs For Felons Hub. Used under Creative Commons license.

A graduate student interviewing me for a paper recently asked “How could we force foundations to transform their internal culture and open wider conversations about equity to as many stakeholders as possible?” I told her we can’t force foundations to do anything, unless or until the entire nonprofit sector calls a general strike.

If all 501c3 organizations refused to take money from institutions whose only obligation is to pay out 5 percent of assets per year toward charitable causes, presumably they would be compelled to come to the bargaining table.

I’ve harbored such fantasies during my 10 years at NCRP. But since I’m a pragmatist, I’ve also tried to create safer spaces for nonprofits to challenge dysfunctional foundation practices, as have others in the sector.

Inside Philanthropy’s platform to rate foundation staffers fell flat. So did our Philamplify web forum to encourage debate and discussion about the foundations we assessed. Now GrantAdvisor is showing promise with its feedback interface. All of these platforms offer the cloak of anonymity.

Especially for those who straddle the worlds of social justice and philanthropy, a perennial question is, “How can we encourage social change leaders to speak truth to power directly to foundations?” Pablo Eisenberg modeled this at the Center for Community Change for decades, telling off his funders with ease and confidence. And the organization thrived. 

At NCRP, which Eisenberg helped found, we joke that we’ve been biting the hand that feeds us for more than 40 years. Yet racial and social justice organizations remain reluctant to apply the same tactics they use with public officials and corporate titans to philanthropy.

Within Our Lifetime (WOL) and Old Money New System Community of Practice (OMNS) are trying to change that with their bold new campaign, #DisruptPhilanthropyNOW. Fed up with foundations that espouse racial equity goals and values and then treat racial justice groups shabbily, WOL and OMNS are calling on racial justice and movement building organizations to tell their stories publicly, and to hold funders that don’t walk their talk accountable for their actions. WOL is using a blog series to tell its own story and model the accountability process it has gone through with a specific funder.

At NCRP, we know that it feels very risky to give critical feedback to a funder. Every Philamplify assessment we produced contained critiques, but I took strength from the fact that the critiques were grounded in the experience and wisdom of nonprofit and community leaders, and even peer funders. So we did not take lightly the decision to join WOL’s and OMNS’ invitation for courageous and collective action, to urge social movement groups to speak their truth.

When readers hear about the types of practices that earned WOL’s need to say “Enough!” they may say, “These are typical bad behaviors that funders engage in with all their grantees. So how is this about racial equity?” My response would be: That’s what disparate impact is about. A (bad) practice that is applied universally affects white groups differently than people of color groups.

People of color-led racial justice groups already garner meager philanthropic resources for their work. They already face many challenges that white-led organizations working on other issues don’t face. People of color-led organizations, especially those fighting for justice, are already viewed as being more radical and having less capacity than nonprofits that look and act like the dominant white culture.

So, foundations that espouse racial justice values should be working and investing to ensure people of color-led groups thrive and grow. And the beauty of targeted universalism is this: If funders improve their practices and behaviors so that people of color-led racial justice organizations specifically can fully advance their missions, those improved practices will benefit all their grantees. 

If you represent a racial justice or movement organization, consider sharing your own story of inequitable philanthropic practices.

We should all be rooting for WOL’s and OMNS’ #DisruptPhilanthropyNOW campaign to succeed. Because a world in which nonprofits are able to achieve equitable philanthropic practices and funder accountability to communities of color will be a world in which we will be that much closer to achieving equity and justice for all.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior director of assessment and special projects at NCRP.

Atlanta is the philanthropic center of the South, and is known as a city of prosperity and inclusiveness. Unfortunately, that reputation is not the reality for all residents of the Metro Atlanta region, as many of the city’s underserved citizens have been pushed to the margins in the name of progress.

Fortunately, there is a huge opportunity for foundations and wealthy donors to step in and support those communities. Currently, most of the city’s philanthropy supports direct service work. Just 2 percent of funding goes to the power-building strategies that would enable grassroots organizations to advocate for themselves. And, only 20 percent of Atlanta’s philanthropic dollars go to low- and middle-income communities, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people and other underserved communities.

NCRP’s newest report, “As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit,” provides a blueprint for how foundations and wealthy donors can respond to the “historic dearth” of philanthropic investment for these strategies and communities in the “city too busy to hate.”

Learn about:

“As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit” is the fourth report in the five-part As the South Grows series. The final report will be released in May.

We hope “As the South Grows” inspires you to look at the South as an important opportunity for deeper engagement, investment and partnerships.

Aaron Dorfman is president and CEO of NCRP. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Alan RabinowitzSocial change philanthropy lost a giant this week as we learned of Alan Rabinowitz’s passing. A former board member of NCRP, Alan’s mark was profound. Though his academic specialty was urban planning, most in our field knew Alan through his activism, writing and funding.

Alan literally wrote the book on social change philanthropy. Published in 1990, Social Change Philanthropy in America was the first comprehensive look at giving designed to change systems, build power and confront inequality and injustice.

He helped found A Territory Resource (now Social Justice Fund Northwest) and Western States Center, and along with his wife Andrea supported and served on the boards of too many anchor progressive organizations to list, from the ACLU to the Highlander Center. Over many decades, Alan and Andrea opened the doors of their home to host fundraisers for many scores of groups, networking organizers and donors to build the base for long-term change.

We invite those of you who were touched by Alan’s work to share reminiscences below.

As the historic 2017 Atlantic hurricane season has demonstrated, extreme weather events can have devastating impacts. And such events are becoming more and more common as the effects of climate change take hold. But those impacts are heightened in the American South, which sits on the front lines of the global climate crisis.

Our newest report, “As the South Grows: Weathering the Storm,” explores opportunities for philanthropy to invest in environmental, racial and climate justice in the South. Using examples in Eastern North Carolina and Southern Louisiana, the report details how the organizing and mobilizing of Southerners around these issues is not matched by foundation investment in their communities.

Learn about:

“As the South Grows: Weathering the Storm” is the third report in the five-part As the South Grows series. The fourth report will be released in February.

We hope “As the South Grows” inspires you to look at the South as an important opportunity for deeper engagement, investment and partnerships.

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

We’re excited to announce that yesterday Reverend Starsky Wilson, president and CEO of Deaconess Foundation in St. Louis, Missouri, was elected unanimously as the new chair of NCRP’s board, succeeding Sherece West-Scantlebury. Sherece, who leads Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, served as NCRP’s board chair for the past four years.

“The work of NCRP is needed now more than ever. Reverend Wilson’s leadership and commitment to social justice will enhance NCRP’s efforts to ensure our nation’s social movements are getting the philanthropic dollars they need to succeed.”

– Sherece West-Scantlebury, President and CEO, Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation

“I am humbled to be asked to lead NCRP’s board at this important time. Philanthropy has an important role to play in helping our nation confront racial injustice and economic inequality. I am excited to work with such a remarkable group of nonprofit and foundation leaders committed to ensuring that philanthropy lives up to its highest aspirations – as transformational agents of just, equitable social change.”

– Reverend Starsky Wilson, President and CEO, Deaconess Foundation

We’re also thrilled to share that five foundation leaders will be joining NCRP’s dynamic and diverse board:

  • Sharon Alpert, President and CEO, Nathan Cummings Foundation
  • Jocelyn Sargent, Executive Director, Hyams Foundation
  • Joseph Scantlebury, Vice President for Program and Strategy (Places), W.K. Kellogg Foundation
  • Pamela Shifman, Executive Director, NoVo Foundation
  • Lateefah Simon, President, Akonadi Foundation

Under Sherece’s leadership, NCRP crafted a bold strategic framework that advocates for the kind of philanthropy that prioritizes and empowers underserved and marginalized communities, and seeks to solve long-term inequities and injustice. We pushed foundations to be more transparent, open and inclusive of stakeholder feedback in strategies and processes. We highlighted the untapped potential and capacity for meaningful philanthropic impact in the South. We examined the latest social justice giving trends among the country’s largest foundations.

New Leadership

In addition to Sherece terming of after nine years on NCRP’s board, other board members have stepped down due to term limits or other factors, including: Bill Bynum, CEO of HOPE Credit Union; Trista Harris, president of Minnesota Council on Foundations; Priscilla Hung, deputy director of Move to End Violence; and Gara LaMarche, president of the Democracy Alliance.

The board also elected other new officers, including: Daniel Lee, executive director of the Levi Strauss Foundation, as the new vice-chair; and Cristina Jiménez, executive director and co-founder of United We Dream, as the new secretary. Vivek Malhotra continues as treasurer and Cynthia Renfro, principal of Civic Consulting, was re-elected as at-large delegate to the executive committee.

“Everyone at NCRP is extremely grateful to Sherece, Bill, Trista, Priscilla and Gara for sharing their time, passion and wisdom. They each helped make NCRP a stronger and better organization, and we will miss them.

“I am excited to work with the incoming new board members. These are people I’ve long admired for their leadership and commitment to high-impact, responsive philanthropy. Fresh perspectives like theirs will bring a lot to the organization.”

– ­Aaron Dorfman, President and CEO, NCRP

Meet our board members!
View the complete list of NCRP’s board of directors.

What movement do you feel most passionate about? Health? Education? Environment? Criminal Justice? LGBTQ? What does that movement need in order to flourish? How do you think philanthropy can help?

We need you to tell us what NCRP, and foundations and other funders can do to support these movements in the near-term and during the next 10 years.

One of the goals of NCRP’s new strategic framework is:

“Over the next 10 years we want to ensure that social movements – especially those led by the people most affected by disparities and inequality – have the philanthropic resources they need to win significant victories that make our society fairer and more just and democratic.”

There are differences among the many movements working to address inequities and injustice in specific issue areas such as health, education and environment.

Join us in this conversation.

Tweet us @NCRP, post on our Facebook page or email us at community@ncrp.org.

To learn more, check out our #MovementMoney launch video.

Jack Rome is communications intern at NCRP. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Image by Mark Dixon. Used under Creative Commons license.