Back Donate
Donate

What does accountability in philanthropy look like today?

This was a particularly salient question at the Just Transition Forum, a powerful cross-sector convening hosted by the Building Equity and Alignment (BEA) for Impact Initiative in Jackson, Mississippi, in February.

The BEA “brings together dynamic grassroots organizing groups, effective national green organizations and innovators in philanthropy to advance the progress of the environmental movement towards a just transition and directly confront powerful polluters.”

Guided by the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing, and informed by research authored by Sarah Hansen and published by NCRP in Cultivating the Grassroots in 2012, the BEA has grown a strong grassroots-led network over the past five years.

Attending the Just Transition Forum and being in a space full of incredible yet continually under-resourced frontline organizers was a humbling and jarring difference from philanthropy’s mainstream conference culture, from the circular assembly set-up and world café discussion model, to leveraging allies like me as volunteer note takers and attending a local rally.

The agenda was outlined but fluid to accommodate emerging themes from conversations, and much of our time was spent grounding ourselves in the history of the movement and wisdom of elders. We delved into the principles and nuances of a “just transition,” recognizing the hundreds of years of colonization and white supremacy, and the resiliency of Indigenous, immigrant and Black communities in the face of so much pain and destruction.

Among the many breakout discussions, I attended one for funders, including colleagues from the Ceres Trust, Chorus, JPB, Overbrook, Mertz Gilmore and Surdna foundations, and organizations such as Arabella Advisors and EDGE Funders.

We discussed philanthropy’s current realities, how we show up and what we bring to the movement. Accountability was a prominent theme: We named that we operate in a sector that has few mechanisms for accountability and transparency, and identified a need to push for structures that support and move philanthropy towards “true accountability.”

It struck me that NCRP has fostered dialogue around these themes since our founding in 1976, a time in our nation’s history when there was also an increasing concern with public accountability. One of NCRP’s seminal reports from 1980, Foundations & Public Information: Sunshine or Shadow?, placed the growing conversation within the context of the Freedom of Information Act, first passed in 1966, the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and public scandals such as the Pallotine Fathers embezzlement case that led to indictment in 1978.

Among many observations that are still relevant, especially amidst the Trump administration, the report asserted: “Being accountable and accessible to the public is one way foundations can overcome an enormous obstacle they face in trying to make grants that deal effectively with social problems. That obstacle is their almost complete isolation from those problems.”

Today, mainstream grantmakers still hold enormous power, privilege and gatekeeping abilities, isolating them from the inequities and injustices experienced at the grassroots. With no “natural predators” beyond the IRS and tax policy in the United States, and ongoing sector disagreement over the fact that foundation dollars are partially public dollars, it’s no wonder that this challenge continues to plague the sector. Reflecting on this same report in 2013, our president Aaron Dorfman wrote, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

But philanthropy can and must move beyond upwards accountability to boards, donors and founders, and operationalize accountability downwards to nonprofit partners and communities.

To address this persistently thorny dynamic in philanthropy, the BEA is educating and organizing funders towards greater alignment with grassroots social movements. And they’re doing so in powerful, intersectional ways that bring funders out of their bubbles, which I invite you to support and learn from.

Here are some suggestions for how to show up and what to bring:

  • Be thoughtful about navigating power dynamics. In spaces like the Just Transition Forum, the BEA invites funders in as collaborators. This doesn’t mean you can’t contribute — the BEA welcomes vulnerability and honesty about your challenges in navigating barriers. But these are opportunities to practice stepping back, listen and make room for grassroots leadership. For more funder-oriented convenings, check out the BEA’s Funder Allies Webinars and the Funder Briefings hosted by the Climate Justice Alliance, a core member of the BEA.
  • Honor the network’s democratic decision-making and understand that these kind of processes take time and require in-person, authentic relationship building to be truly inclusive and responsive. For more do’s and don’ts for how to approach this in historically under-resourced, marginalized communities, check out NCRP’s As the South Grows series of reports.
  • Contribute to the burgeoning BEA Fund to better resource grassroots groups that are advancing community-based solutions to the ecological crisis. The Fund’s grants will be decided by the real experts: grassroots organizers. To delve into the “why” and “how” of equitable community-led grantmaking, check out NCRP’s Pass the Reins webinar and our recent issue of Responsive Philanthropy.

Funders can play important roles in social movements, providing resources, peer support and sector organizing. By engaging in the work of organizations like the BEA and NCRP, grantmakers can practice more respectful relationships with grassroots groups and generate a culture of “true accountability” throughout the sector.

Caitlin Duffy is senior associate for learning and engagement at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP, @DuffyInDC and @BEA4Impact on Twitter, and stay tuned for more reflections and recommendations from the BEA at www.bea4impact.org. You can find live tweets from the Just Transition Forum using #JTForum2018.

Thank you to Doyle Canning and Jennifer Near of the BEA and Samantha Harvey of EDGE Funders for their support with this post.

Photo courtesy of Building Equity and Alignment for Impact.

Adelina Nicholls, co-founder and executive director of Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR) described the challenges of her work in the As the South Grows: Bearing Fruit NCRP report with a simple yet illustrative quote:

 “I am the one keeping the books, moving around money and paying the bills. I am the only one writing the grants, and I am the one leading our community organizing.”

In spite of the financial limitations with which her organization has had to operate in the past almost two decades, the accomplishments of GLAHR speak of an effective organization staffed mostly by volunteers and cemented in the community.

Adelina’s case is not unique; in fact, it is the reality for a myriad of small Latino serving nonprofit organizations working in partnership with thousands of Latinx families, students and entrepreneurs across Georgia.

These organizations, Latino-led and largely underfunded and unknown to funders and decision-makers, are, in our opinion, the key to building a more equitable future for Georgia. This is why:

According to the University of Georgia’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government, one in five Georgians will be Latino in 2030. With significant geographic dispersion and significant limitations in transportation, immigration and language, it is only through a network of agencies that already have built trust and respect in our families, that we are able to have the wide and deep reach needed to bridge the gap between opportunity and talent for our hard-working, entrepreneurial and resilient community.

Since the early ‘90s, when Georgia experienced for the first time (since the African slave trade closed down) a large-scale influx of “non-traditional” population – in this case Latinos, coming to build the city for the Olympics – the Hispanic community has evolved significantly, yet funding models have not.

What made sense 30 years ago, which was to fund a few national or well-known organizations and expect them to deliver basic services to Spanish-speaking, mostly young males working in construction, following a pyramidal model that funds organizations at the top (more visible and larger) expecting benefits and funding to reach the middle and base of the pyramid (the communities) does not work today.

Today, the community has evolved and diversified. We are 10 percent of the state population, and mostly young families. While most Latinx adults are still first generation immigrants, 87 percent of all Latinos under 18 are American citizens. Latinas in Georgia are one of the fastest segments opening businesses in the country and very civically engaged, dominating voter participation rates with 73 percent of us casting ballots in 2016 (according to the report issued by Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, 2016: The Latino Electorate in Georgia Continues to Grow and Vote).

Many challenges remain. Unlike other states with a more mature Latino community, we do not have “barrios” where generations of Latinos have traditionally lived, grown and develop influence and iconic institutions and leaders. Our realities as recent immigrants and new Americans are translated into barriers for self-sufficiency and efficiencies, even more clear when we, Latinos, lead our own institutions.

A new funding model needs to take place to meet the needs of this new community. 

This new funding model, an inverted pyramid, funding a network of organizations, versus one or two, needs to use a deliberate equity lens and criteria to assessing capacity that is sensitive to the realities of our community.

While perfect English, minimum budgets and complex strategic plans are often appropriate standards and blanket criteria for mainstream organizations, they do not serve a community that has been historically underfunded, many times ignored and at best tokenized.

These standards limit well-meaning organizations by overlooking the very attributes and capacities that make Latino-led and majority Latino-serving grassroots organizations uniquely qualified to serve our own community:

  • Our immigrant competencies
  • Our shared experiences
  • Our language and cultural sensitivities and capabilities
  • The trust, respect and love we have with the families we serve

The only way to build a sustainable ecosystem of competent Latino-serving organizations is to invest in local and community-centered leadership.

With 41 percent of Latino children living in poverty in the state (Pew Hispanic Center) and only 0.3 percent of grantmaking in Metro Atlanta allocated to immigrant-serving organizations (according to NCRP), we must do better.

Yes, investments in large and national organizations with local chapters are still important, but it is equally important to support the existing infrastructure of organizations already influencing and doing the heavy lifting through deep community connections across counties and regions in the state.

This inverse pyramidal funding model is a model that we see replicated in politics, where mayors are leading change in their cities (versus Washington leading from the top down) and also in efforts to bridge the digital divide (from internet cafes and hubs, to mass access via subsidized digital products and technology). The model is key to ensuring economic opportunity, building capacity and supporting effective action and power building in our community.

Our network, 22 members strong, is a testament of the willingness of our Latino-led and majority Latino-serving organizations in Georgia to work together towards a better future for all. Because yes, we are stronger together and we, Latinx, help Georgia grow.

Gilda (Gigi) Pedraza is the executive director of Latino Community Fund (LCF Georgia). Follow @GigiPedrazaM and @LatinoConnectGA on Twitter.

California and the American South have much in common. They’re both economic powerhouses. They’re both engines of culture, literature and film. And they’re both dynamos of resistance, from the mayor of Oakland’s recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid warning, to today’s Southern youth pioneering movements like their forebears did half a century ago.

Yet philanthropy has built few bridges between these two regions. This gulf constrains our country’s progress. That’s why, as part of our As the South Grows initiative, NCRP, Grantmakers for Southern Progress (GSP) and Solutions Project hosted two “South Meets West” funder briefings last month in California.

The first event took place with Northern California Grantmakers in San Francisco at the James Irvine Foundation.

Attendees at the “South Meets West” funder event in San Francisco.

The second took place in downtown Los Angeles.

Southern leaders Stephanie Guilloud, Dr. Jenny Stephens and Peter Hille present at the "South Meets West" even in Los Angeles.

California-based community foundations, private foundations, rapid response funds and individual donors met with Southern foundations, nonprofit leaders and community organizers from across the South.  

Attendees at the San Francisco "South Meets West" event.

Tyler Nickerson kicked things off by sharing why, as a progressive funder, Solutions Project believes in funding the grassroots in both regions.

Tyler Nickerson of Solutions Project at the San Francisco "South Meets West" event.

NCRP Vice President and Chief Engagement Officer Jeanné Isler and GSP Co-Chair and Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation Program Director Lavastian Glenn shared highlights from NCRP and GSP’s As the South Grows series.

Organizing, advocacy and civic engagement (per capita grantmaking, 2010-2014).

 

Southern leaders shared how the road to national progress runs through the South. They included Stephanie Guilloud from Project South in Atlanta, Dr. Jennie Stephens from the Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation in South Carolina and Peter Hille from the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development in Kentucky (all NCRP nonprofit members).

Peter Hille, Stephanie Guilloud and Dr. Jennie Stephens at the San Francisco "South Meets West" event.

We strategized together and told stories together.

Attendees at the "South Meets West" event in San Francisco.

We even went to happy hour together. 

People left with commitments to move money, make phone calls and visit the South in person.

Attendees at the "South Meets West" event in San Francisco.

And we left inspired with what can happen when the South and California partner together. 

Attendees at the "South Meets West" even in Los Angeles.

These events were a first step. True change in the philanthropic relationship between the South and California will take long-term relationships, as well as a willingness to risk our comfort with the status quo. Here at NCRP, we’re excited to roll up our sleeves.

To learn how you can get involved with NCRP, GSP and As the South Grows, contact Ben Barge at bbarge@ncrp.org and Tamieka Mosley at tmosley@southerneducation.org.

Ben Barge is senior associate for learning and engagement at NCRP. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

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.

Editor’s note: This post is part of an ongoing series of posts featuring NCRP nonprofit members.

Prosperity Now logoThe classic American dream comes with a lot of promises. Things like going to college, owning a home and saving for retirement. All this and more is available to those who buckle down, work hard and save as they go.

Most of us know this “dream” is really a fantasy for millions of people in America. The unequal distribution of wealth in this country keeps those with the most access to financial resources on top, and those shut off doomed to barely get by. The top one percent of Americans holds 39 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 90 percent only holds 23 percent.

Prosperity Now has been shouting about this injustice for almost 40 years. The organization, formerly known as the Corporation for Enterprise Development, has been picking up steam as wealth inequality has exploded into an issue of national importance. Between its 2017 rebrand and a host of tried-and-true wealth-building projects targeting low income Americans and people of color, Prosperity Now is a full-blown economic justice powerhouse.

But the power lies in using many of the same tools and strategies that have worked for decades, which isn’t something philanthropy seems too keen on funding. Instead of parceling out grants for new projects every few years, what if foundations supported projects that not only have a long track record of success but also continue to work today?

They might not be new and sexy, but things like the coordination and support of a 1,600-member community tax preparation network can transform the financial security of a household. Located in community centers, schools and libraries across the country, this network of volunteers helps low income families file their taxes and apply for money-savers like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, all for free.

Prosperity Now mobilized this group of preparers to restore funding for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program in the most recent Congress – a significant feat. Americans earning under $54,000, disabled Americans and limited English speakers all benefit from the service. To ensure volunteers are maximizing their time with these groups, Prosperity Now has a host of toolkits and guides advising preparers on everything from broaching the savings conversation to navigating software changes.

That’s not to say there aren’t new ventures too. Just this month, Prosperity Now released its latest Scorecard, a comprehensive look at American financial wellbeing across the country that’s easily sortable by topic. Two recent publications, The Ever Growing Gap and The Road to Zero Wealth, demonstrated how it would take centuries to equalize wealth disparities between white Americans and Americans of color without concerted policy actions. The Racial Wealth Divide project invests in the expansion of policies to reduce this divide and in the capacity-building of organizations of color to lead this effort.

Partnering with other nonprofits has always been an area of particular focus. Whether in health care, affordable housing, education or social services, Prosperity Now has made inroads to integrate financial services into the work these groups are already doing as a means to increase impact and financial security.

One large housing organization adopted a children’s savings account program after serving one generation of families, only to have a second and then a third eventually appear at their door no more financially stable than their grandparents. Aside from children’s savings accounts, Prosperity Now also has highly interactive guidebooks on integrating financial capability and one-on-one financial coaching.

When you believe the main thing distinguishing the wealthy from the poor is not ability but opportunity, you find ways to meet people where they are. That’s why Prosperity Now is also trying to build relationships with corporate social responsibility leaders – to work with institutions that serve significant portions of low income Americans, particularly those of color.

The case for doing so is relatively simple: Building the financial security of low income workers is good for business. Henry Ford famously paid his employees competitive wages not because of altruism, but because he wanted someone to buy his cars. The argument remains the same today.

That said, philanthropy still comprises roughly two-thirds of Prosperity Now’s funding. The rest is government contracts with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department, but contract renewal isn’t guaranteed. Foundations and individual donors are the ones who drive the resources for Prosperity Now’s work.

Currently, only one out of Prosperity Now’s 70-odd grants provides three years of flexible funding. As much effort as it has put into securing financial viability for those who need it most, Prosperity Now is owed long term security of its own. We know what they do works. We know what they advocate could transform. So, what are we waiting for?

Troy Price is NCRP’s membership and fundraising intern. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

Editor’s note: This post is part of an ongoing series of posts featuring NCRP nonprofit members.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy logo.Glenda Jimmo, a blind woman confined to a wheelchair after diabetes took her right leg, required multiple weekly home health services for her condition.

A woman living with ALS who lost the user of her arms and hands required extensive care services in her home.

A World War II veteran stricken with Parkinson’s disease fell in his home and needed access to a skilled nursing facility for his recovery.

All three were denied Medicare coverage, the national health insurance program for which Social Security recipients who are over 65 or permanently disabled are eligible, because their conditions were “not improving” and thus not worthy of coverage.

Another woman was left helpless and alone after Medicare deemed her multiple sclerosis “not improving.” Bedridden and shut off from essential in-home nursing care, she went four days without food or water.

This “improvement standard” pervaded all of Medicare, informing the decisions of health care providers, contractors and even administrative law judges.

For decades, it was used to save money and deny coverage to the Americans who most direly needed care. But there was no regulation on the books that supported this practice. In fact, Medicare rules stipulate “the restoration potential of a patient is not the deciding factor in determining whether skilled services are needed.”

Put another way: The improvement standard was illegal. Medicare providers had conjured up a standard out of thin air, and to devastating effect.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA), a Connecticut-based organization that fights on behalf of older and disabled Americans to improve their access to and the quality of their health care, refused to abide this misguided practice.

Since its founding in 1986, CMA has taught Medicare administrators that the elderly and disabled need not show improvement to retain coverage if their current treatment is still the best way to care for them, e.g. if other options would lead to worse health outcomes.

This helped individual cases, but did little to stem the tide of wrongful coverage denials. Having exhausted all other advocacy options, CMA did what it had to do and took the federal government to court. They won.

This was literally a life-saving victory for people like Glenda Jimmo. And it’s not the first time CMA has used the courts to protect some of the most vulnerable among us.

The organization represents thousands of Americans in appeals of Medicare denials, and advocates on their behalf in administrative, executive and legal settings. Legal services have proven to be an effective arrow in the organization’s quiver.

But it’s only one arrow among many. Connecticut has contracted CMA to provide legal training and support for its health insurance and assistance program. CMA produces a host of educational materials and resources related to Medicare, and everyday Americans nationwide rely on CMA for expert Medicare information and insight.

In the National Medicare Advocates Alliance, CMA is joined by a network of attorneys, Medicare-related advocacy organizations and state health insurance providers for bimonthly conference calls on specific topics in Medicare, elders’ rights and elders’ health care.

The National Medicare Advocates Alliance began as a foundation-funded project more than a decade ago, but its national impact was so great that it felt compelled to continue the endeavor even after the original grants expired.

But the cost of managing CMA hasn’t gone away. Nor has the cost of fielding the hundreds of calls CMA receives each year from outside Connecticut when older or disabled Americans need expertise and counsel. Philanthropy has heretofore shown little interest in funding these services, and funders have been even more reticent to fund legal work, according to CMA.

The threats to Medicare access and quality continue to grow. CMA won an inspiring victory on the improvement standard, but that just pushed Medicare to enforce existing law correctly. Bigger, systemic perils like privatization of the program or a winding down of Medicare altogether endanger far more of our seniors and disabled.

Bigger, systemic problems require bigger, systemic solutions. Philanthropy needs to invest in long-term capacity so those working on this issue can build up the staffing necessary to hold the line on Medicare access and quality.

When they devise successful programs like the National Medicare Advocates Alliance, funders shouldn’t cut support after a year or two and ask for something new. Place the emphasis instead on enriching and broadening what has already proven to work.

Advocacy is a matter of using the best resources to tell the best stories in the best place possible. The Center for Medicare Advocacy has the stories and has the places. Imagine what they could do if they had the resources too.

Troy Price is NCRP’s membership and fundraising intern. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.