Could D5 Speed Up Inclusive Philanthropy?
posted on: Thursday, May 31, 2012
by Kevin Laskowski
On the one hand, the D5 Coalition’s new report State of the Work 2012 excites and inspires. An effort of more than a dozen organizations in philanthropy, D5 is a five-year coalition to grow philanthropy’s diversity, equity and inclusion by 2015. State of the Work 2012 is the second in an annual series of reports on the coalition’s work.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation president and CEO Sterling K. Speirn says:
“We need philanthropy to look more like America, so we can better respond to the complex issues facing Americans today…We still have a lot of work to do to ensure that philanthropy, as a sector, can really have impact and drive meaningful change in our communities. But we're on our way.”
And there’s so much here to indicate that we are indeed “on our way:”
- Developing a sector-wide diversity data tracking system.
- Identifying and holding up models of diverse and inclusive foundations.
- Increasing recognition and capacity of population-focused funds (PFFs) and progressive, public foundations.
On the other hand, I’m impatient.
Kudos to D5 for creating some urgency by adopting a 2015 deadline and for focusing philanthropic attention with these annual reports. For those who are familiar with and understand the power of such funders to effect change, the endorsement of PFFs and social justice-oriented public foundations is welcome.
But what is taking so long? Foundations are supposed to be turn-on-a-dime social innovators. Unencumbered by the pressures of bottom lines and ballots, they can provide much-needed sources of flexible, catalytic capital to communities in need around some of the biggest issues of our time. And yet, here we are at the confluence of issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, power and community, and the pace of foundation movement is simply geological. Our society has changed greatly in the past century, and our institutions have evolved with it. Change didn’t come easily, but it has come to businesses, legislatures, universities, and even pro sports. Philanthropy’s comparative failure to evolve should embarrass us. When it comes to social change, philanthropy is supposed to be ahead of the curve. Here, it is woefully behind. Why?
Given D5’s programmatic focus, the answers seem to be a lack of information and capable intermediaries. State of the Work 2012 repeats the statistical picture from 2011’s report and contends:
“At the very core of D5’s work is a commitment to making more financial resources available to the coalition’s primary target populations. Over the last year, D5 Coalition leaders found themselves continually running into a roadblock as they worked to realize that commitment: the lack of complete data about how much funding goes to diverse communities. The data we do have, however, suggest that funding for diverse communities is low.”
Meanwhile, D5 has created the Philanthropic Inclusion Fund to provide external support and build the capacity of PFFs, which “lack the funding to achieve even a fraction of their promise.” The Philanthropic Inclusion Fund will provide “small grants of up to $10,000 for specific capacity-building projects and access to the philanthropic sector.”
The message I hear is this: foundations are indeed willing to touch issues of equity and inclusion with a ten-foot pole--just as soon as somebody else gets around to building a better ten-foot pole. The available data are insufficient, the argument goes, and those best positioned to serve targeted communities lack the desired capacity. We are assured that, once a diversity database is in place and intermediaries are sufficiently capitalized (a mere $10,000 at a time?), we can expect more financial resources going to the targeted populations.
Here’s hoping that D5’s work can deprive mainstream philanthropy of these self-serving excuses. D5 has assembled once again what we know about what foundations have and have not done in the way of inclusive philanthropy. For those interested in changing that picture and investing more in marginalized and underserved groups, D5 has identified more than 400 funds doing just that around the country that could use charitable capital to great effect. What exactly is philanthropy waiting for?
Kevin Laskowski is research and policy associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.Labels: D5 Coalition, diversity, Kevin Laskowski, marginalized communities, Measuring Impact, Philanthropy’s role in society, W.K. Kellogg Foundation
On the one hand, the D5 Coalition’s new report State of the Work 2012 excites and inspires. An effort of more than a dozen organizations in philanthropy, D5 is a five-year coalition to grow philanthropy’s diversity, equity and inclusion by 2015. State of the Work 2012 is the second in an annual series of reports on the coalition’s work.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation president and CEO Sterling K. Speirn says:
“We need philanthropy to look more like America, so we can better respond to the complex issues facing Americans today…We still have a lot of work to do to ensure that philanthropy, as a sector, can really have impact and drive meaningful change in our communities. But we're on our way.”
And there’s so much here to indicate that we are indeed “on our way:”
- Developing a sector-wide diversity data tracking system.
- Identifying and holding up models of diverse and inclusive foundations.
- Increasing recognition and capacity of population-focused funds (PFFs) and progressive, public foundations.
Kudos to D5 for creating some urgency by adopting a 2015 deadline and for focusing philanthropic attention with these annual reports. For those who are familiar with and understand the power of such funders to effect change, the endorsement of PFFs and social justice-oriented public foundations is welcome.
But what is taking so long? Foundations are supposed to be turn-on-a-dime social innovators. Unencumbered by the pressures of bottom lines and ballots, they can provide much-needed sources of flexible, catalytic capital to communities in need around some of the biggest issues of our time. And yet, here we are at the confluence of issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, power and community, and the pace of foundation movement is simply geological. Our society has changed greatly in the past century, and our institutions have evolved with it. Change didn’t come easily, but it has come to businesses, legislatures, universities, and even pro sports. Philanthropy’s comparative failure to evolve should embarrass us. When it comes to social change, philanthropy is supposed to be ahead of the curve. Here, it is woefully behind. Why?
Given D5’s programmatic focus, the answers seem to be a lack of information and capable intermediaries. State of the Work 2012 repeats the statistical picture from 2011’s report and contends:
“At the very core of D5’s work is a commitment to making more financial resources available to the coalition’s primary target populations. Over the last year, D5 Coalition leaders found themselves continually running into a roadblock as they worked to realize that commitment: the lack of complete data about how much funding goes to diverse communities. The data we do have, however, suggest that funding for diverse communities is low.”
Meanwhile, D5 has created the Philanthropic Inclusion Fund to provide external support and build the capacity of PFFs, which “lack the funding to achieve even a fraction of their promise.” The Philanthropic Inclusion Fund will provide “small grants of up to $10,000 for specific capacity-building projects and access to the philanthropic sector.”
The message I hear is this: foundations are indeed willing to touch issues of equity and inclusion with a ten-foot pole--just as soon as somebody else gets around to building a better ten-foot pole. The available data are insufficient, the argument goes, and those best positioned to serve targeted communities lack the desired capacity. We are assured that, once a diversity database is in place and intermediaries are sufficiently capitalized (a mere $10,000 at a time?), we can expect more financial resources going to the targeted populations.
Here’s hoping that D5’s work can deprive mainstream philanthropy of these self-serving excuses. D5 has assembled once again what we know about what foundations have and have not done in the way of inclusive philanthropy. For those interested in changing that picture and investing more in marginalized and underserved groups, D5 has identified more than 400 funds doing just that around the country that could use charitable capital to great effect. What exactly is philanthropy waiting for?
Kevin Laskowski is research and policy associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: D5 Coalition, diversity, Kevin Laskowski, marginalized communities, Measuring Impact, Philanthropy’s role in society, W.K. Kellogg Foundation
posted by Kevin Laskowski at
10:13 AM
2 Comments:
If you look at the largest, formally organized foundations, you will see that they are already diverse at the program staff level -- the largest employment category in foundations. What a lot of diversity advocates do is play with statistics. If you include all foundations - including those thousands of family foundations that a) don't have staff or b) hire only family as sole professional employee or c) have fewer than 4 full-time staff and don't advertise openings, sure you can see a mostly white world. (Cuz that's who has the money.) Compare apples to apples, however -- larger, formal organizations with HR departments and the ability to manage public advertising for positions, and I believe you will find that foundations already compare favorably to universities and businesses.
By
Anonymous, at 6:32 PM
Building more inclusive and responsive foundations starts at the top, and that's where foundations lag. There is indeed diversity at the staff level, but people of color, women, LGBT citizens, etc. are definitely under-represented among foundation CEOs and especially board members.
This is of concern because these statistics come from the "larger, formal organizations with HR departments and the ability to manage public advertising for positions" you rightly argue we should be examining: members of the Council on Foundations.
For me, building diverse organizations is less about being able to check off a set of boxes than it is about bringing together the mix of values, experiences and skills that make for effective, responsive institutions. As you point out, the world of wealth is a very white and rarefied one. In the same ways that diversity has enriched our universities and businesses, philanthropy could benefit greatly from broader input.
By
Kevin Laskowski, at 12:51 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home