posted on: Thursday, August 30, 2012

By Niki Jagpal
 
This past July, the Applied Research Center released a report titled Good Food+Good Jobs For All: Challenges and Opportunities to Advance Racial and Economic Equity in the Food System. The report notes that both the Good Food and Good Jobs movements are limited because they are dominated by the frame of individualism. It includes recommendations for both movements and states that:

“An effective response to the inequities of the food system requires analysis and action that both acknowledge and address the economics and racial composition of the power elite and those most impacted. Generally, such strategy was lacking in both the good food and good jobs movements. Both worlds focus on their self-interests, without a broader vision of how race, class and gender are interconnected in the food chain for both producers and consumers.”

The report includes some sobering statistics. For example, it notes that those most impacted affected by the food and economic system are disproportionately communities of color and lower-income communities. Of the 40 million households in this country that are classified as dealing with “food insecurity” as defined by the USDA, the rate among African American and Latino households is three times that of white households. It also notes racial inequities in negative health outcomes attributable to a lack of access to good food.

In discussing racial inequity in the food economy, the report finds that white workers are overrepresented in management positions while women and communities of color are overrepresented in “rank and file” jobs. Fully 44 percent of these workers are non-white and across the entire food system, whites comprised three out of every four managers.
The report includes four recommendations:

1. Pursue intersectional analysis and foster the leadership of those most impacted.
2. Create alternatives while challenging the dominant food and economic system.
3. Build multiracial and multi-interest coalitions.
4. Conduct more research on frames and develop resources to create tools and training.

The problem with the way both movements are structured is that they are siloed in much the same way that many foundations are siloed. What resonated most with me were the four recommendations ARC makes, which could easily inform philanthropy:

• Developing leadership among those most affected.
• Investing in grassroots groups that are led by or do work on behalf of underserved communities to make  lasting structural changes that would build a more inclusive and just society.
• Funding more multiracial and multi-issue coalitions

These recommendations align with the findings and suggestions of our High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy series of report, which propose intentionally identifying underserved communities as the beneficiaries of philanthropy and include several examples of policy wins attributable to multiracial and multi-issue groups. Our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project also documented policy wins by 113 such groups in 13 states of the country. You can view these wins in a searchable database of all the impacts from that series of reports.

Understanding the interconnectedness of various issues is the only way to effect lasting change. As this report demonstrates, fostering mutual accountability, acknowledging the power relations that exist in our society and confronting them directly are two critical strategies that could help philanthropy have more impact. What seem on the surface to be disparate issues are, in fact, not. Real structural and systems change is only possible when all of us, including grantmakers, understand the connections among race, gender, class and other identity markers.

Does your foundation fund socially inclusive food or jobs campaigns?

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).