Back Donate
Donate

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.

Here at NCRP, we pride ourselves on doing good research that translates into effective tools for the sector. What many folks may not know is that we frequently hear about important news and happenings from around the sector before anyone else.

Recently, we got wind of some pretty mind-blowing updates from our source. Some are just too big to keep to ourselves, so we decided to share them with our readers. Remember, you heard it here first!

Foundation leaders seen advocating outside their offices

Recent sightings of foundation leaders out and about at conferences, events and on the Hill, suggest a new commitment to actual advocacy for their causes. “We want to show that we’ve changed” opined a rarely seen foundation leader.

Major funder breaks the mold

“Only multi-year funding from now on,” declared a major funder.

Philanthropy Roundtable Proposes abolition of IRS Form 990PF

Noting that donors who give through donor advised funds and LLCs are not required to disclose much of anything, the Philanthropy Roundtable today urged Congress to abolish the requirement that private foundations publicly disclose IRS form 990PF.

“Why is it fair that Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t have to disclose details about his giving, but donors who give through foundations do?” asked Adam Meyerson, president of the group. “All we’re asking for is that every donor has complete and total freedom to do whatever he or she wants, without the prospect of their giving being picked apart and scrutinized by the public.”

A spokesman for President Trump noted that the White House would welcome such a bill, adding that “David Fahrenthold was a real pain in the neck during the campaign.”

Community foundations express public support for donor-advised fund payout requirements

Foundation CEO agrees to swap places for one week with a grantee frontliner

“It seemed like something I should try.”

Foundations exclaim: “It’s not my money, it’s ours, and we are equal partners. Respect!”

“We just felt this strange urge to say that. I’m not sure where it came from, but it seems like a good thing,” admitted Fool Foundation executive April Day.

Independent Sector and Council on Foundations to merge, lauding Pablo Eisenberg recommendation

Major foundation CEO makes straightforward commitment to bravery

“I will be brave and innovative, and I’ll admit what I don’t know and be willing to learn,” pledged a CEO of a major foundation when asked what they plan to do differently to increase impact.

Trump announces Vu Lee to lead initiative that will make business and government run like nonprofits

“This is in my best interest, right?” asked President Trump after making the announcement via Twitter.

Foundations sign pledge to agree to Philamplify assessments and using the results to improve the impact of their funding.

We normally don’t reveal our source, but we want to give credit where it’s due. Thank you, Mr. A. Fools.

Updated 8/31/2016

It’s that time of year when kids go back to school, and luckily each year tends to be a fresh experience for students – new teachers, new curriculum and often new peers in the classroom. But for teachers and administrators, and sometimes even students, it can feel like the same old thing.

Not so in the Silverton School District, located in the northern Willamette Valley of Oregon. As Marie Traeger knows well, teachers and school leaders are changing it up. After teaching for 28 years, Traeger embraced the opportunity to help the whole district overhaul its evaluation and professional development systems for teachers and administrators. This may sound like dry human resources work, but it’s transforming how learning happens in the classroom, and how teachers and administrators collaborate.

Traeger, the collaboration grant manager for the district, explained, “We are learning practices to help improve teaching, do continual learning, more student directed learning. It’s a difficult thing to get to, because it means teachers have to release the power of the learning responsibility to the students.”

The ultimate goal is to increase student success. “One of the greatest successes of the grant was an ’AHA!’ by one of our veteran teachers. This teacher used to stand in front of the class and lecture for most of the period. With a strategy learned through professional development, this teacher learned ways to gradually release responsibilities to the class and saw increased test scores and better wellbeing for the teacher.”

This quiet revolution in teaching and learning is thanks in large part to the Chalkboard Project, launched in 2004 by Foundations for a Better Oregon’s six founding members: The Collins Foundation, The Ford Family Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, James F. & Marion L. Miller Foundation, The Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) and Wendt Family Foundation.

Chalkboard researches and pilots promising practices to transform Oregon’s K–12 public school system to produce high quality schools, have stable funding, elevate student success and eliminate disparities in student achievement. Oregon’s high school graduation rate of 72 percent lags behind the national level of 82 percent, and for several racial and ethnic groups the rates are even lower.

After extensively engaging teachers, administrators and parents, Chalkboard’s leaders decided to focus on elevating teacher and school leader effectiveness and developed Creative Leadership Achieves Student Success (CLASS). It provides mentoring and coaching to school districts that can demonstrate collaboration among the superintendent, school board and teachers’ union, to develop new career paths for teachers, meaningful performance evaluation, relevant professional development and alternative compensation models. CLASS has achieved demonstrable improvements in student achievement, which is why it is being implemented in the Silverton school district.

Another core strategy adopted by the Chalkboard Project is advocacy to advance state education policy. Informed by the successful CLASS initiative, Chalkboard’s advocacy achievements included establishment of the School District Collaboration Grant Program, which incentivizes CLASS expansion.

In an interview with NCRP, OCF CEO Max Williams said Chalkboard has leveraged its limited dollars effectively:

“In districts where it has implemented programs with research and evaluation, we’ve seen dramatically positive improvements. It was patient money that had to wait, and eventually we were able to make policy changes. … [O]ur little bit of money that we invested over years is now leveraging probably $30–$40 million a year in state money to build the model in [other] parts of the state.”

According to Chalkboard executive director Sue Hildick, after conducting an equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) audit, in 2014 Chalkboard developed an EDI framework and three-year workplan, which contains specific goals, strategies and actions.

“We ran three pilot programs that touched 65 percent of school kids in the state… and we are seeing opportunity gaps closing across some groups but not all,” said Hildick. “So we spent the last three years in a deep space about race and inequity and how to propel change in those areas.”

I see three key lessons in this story for funder collaboratives:

  1. If you are trying to change systems, you’ve got to be in it for the long haul. The Chalkboard grantmakers have been at it for more than a decade, taking time to engage stakeholders in shaping strategy and using data to inform mid-course corrections.
  2. Policy advocacy is an essential tool in systems change. While a lot can be done by improving and aligning services and programs, ultimately most issues require better policies or more public resources to achieve progress. The resources of foundations, even when pooled, will always be dwarfed by public funding.
  3. Equity has to be an explicit, upfront goal if you want to reduce disparities. Often a rising tide does not lift all boats, especially if systems perpetuate disparities, even unintentionally. Chalkboard’s EDI audit helped identify areas for strategy refinement. Ideally, equity focus is built in at the beginning of the initiative.

Kudos to Foundations for a Better Oregon for incorporating all three. As a result, Traeger believes that Silverton will see better outcomes for underserved populations with the CLASS approach. “With the shift of students being engaged more, that is going to help students with language barriers and different styles of learning. Doing the same thing for everyone doesn’t work.”

Lisa Ranghelli is senior director of assessment and special projects at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), where she leads Philamplify, an initiative that combines expert assessment and critical stakeholder feedback to improve grantmaking practices and boost equitable outcomes in communities.

Adapted from The Oregon Community Foundation – Can it Build a Statewide Legacy of Equity and Inclusion?

Earlier this year, The Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) approved a $300,000, seven-year loan to support Albina Opportunities Corporation (AOC). AOC offers financing to small businesses owned by women, people of color, immigrants and persons with disabilities in Portland. Among the endeavors funded by AOC is Escuela Viva Community School, founded by Portland mother Angie Garcia for her own daughter. “I was looking for a program that would nurture her spirit and provide a bilingual environment. The truth is that I just couldn’t find it. So I started this.”

The demand for the school’s dual language programming became so great that by 2010, Escuela Viva required quick capital to set up a new center and consolidate its three locations. AOC’s former executive director, Terry Brandt, observed, “Not only does [Escuela Viva] provide children with a unique educational opportunity, but it has created and will sustain living wage rate jobs in our community.”

This type of impact investing can generate a measurable social or environmental impact alongside financial return by providing capital to companies, organizations and funds. Clara Miller, president of F.B. Heron Foundation, has written that 21st-century funders must “go beyond marginal and auxiliary philanthropy (the traditional and appropriate model for charity) to engage actively with the whole economy, positioning ourselves to be fully engaged for mission both inside the foundation and outside in the economy.”

Compared with other philanthropies, community foundations face special challenges in place-based impact investing due to their unique structures, limited discretionary dollars and donor mandates. NCRP’s foundation assessment initiative, Philamplify, recently explored how the Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) became a proactive leader in this space.

In 2013, Mission Investors Exchange profiled OCF for investing one-half of 1 percent of its $1.3 billion endowment, or approximately $6.5 million, in Oregon-based early-stage investment funds such as the Oregon Angel Fund. As the foundation’s endowment grows, so does the amount of investment in early stage growth companies and start-ups. OCF reported that the current total is roughly $8 million, of which $7 million has been deployed to date.

To strengthen the foundation’s capacity to meet its mission, including its strategic focus on economic vitality in Oregon, OCF launched an impact investment program in 2014. Among its efforts, the foundation has sponsored studies about Oregon’s capital ecosystem, and provided loans and grants to help develop a skilled workforce and build the state’s post-recession economy. The program uses discretionary grant money to make program-related investments (PRIs), including $3 million allotted by the foundation’s board several years ago. It will be fully deployed this year, and the board plans to discuss potential future allocations.

To help move capital to rural Oregon businesses, in 2014 OCF invested $1 million in Craft3, a regional nonprofit community-development financial institution (CDFI). Craft3 provides low-interest loans to entrepreneurs and small-business owners who are unable to access traditional credit, including EcoTrust, which used a $1.3 million short-term loan from Craft3 and a grant from OCF in 2014 to purchase and permanently protect a coastal estuary in Northern Oregon.

The community foundation also partnered with Meyer Memorial Trust, a leader in mission-related investing in Oregon and southwest Washington. OCF committed $2 million to the partnership to provide low-interest loans to Oregon nonprofits. Other support includes a loan to the Portland Seed Fund, a company accelerator that provides capital, mentoring and connections; and capacity building grants to AOC, the CDFI that helped Angie Garcia grow Escuela Viva.

The Democracy Collaborative featured OCF as one of 30 innovative community foundations from across the country for its work with AOC, Craft3 and Meyer.

Behind the scenes, OCF offers a Socially Responsive Investment Fund to its donors and nonprofit endowment partners to screen out investments inconsistent with their values and “invest in companies that have strong records in the areas of corporate governance, community relations, diversity and employee relations, energy and the environment, product quality and safety, and non-U.S. operations.”

In an interview for NCRP’s assessment, Elizabeth Carey, vice president and chief financial officer, shared that OCF is discussing avenues such as fossil fuel divestment, but sees an opportunity to do more with proxy votes and “activist investing.” She said: “One of our managers was invested in a Norway company that was actively considering whether to drill in tar sands, and invested so they could vote to block that. They brought up proxy votes to keep the company from going in that direction and blocked that. [If we divest], we don’t get a say in what companies do. We have had positive impacts for companies that would have made bad environmental decisions.”

OCF shows a clear commitment to economically vibrant communities across the state, and its strategic plan for 2015-2018 outlines a goal to continue this work and “allocate well-targeted impact investments, evaluating their outcomes and priority within OCF’s overall mission.” OCF can build on this commitment by dedicating more staff resources to the program, and increasing the proportion of its endowment allotted for impact investments, especially investments that advance its equity goals, like Escuela Viva.

Caitlin Duffy is senior associate for learning and engagement at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), and co-author of “Oregon Community Foundation – Can it Build a Statewide Legacy of Equity and Inclusion?” Follow @NCRP and @DuffyInDC on Twitter and join the #Philamplify conversation.

Images by Michael Silberstein, van Ort and Eli Duke. Modified under Creative Commons license.

Updated 9/2/2016 2:25 PM EDT with additional attribution for image used.

A few years back I was speaking with the manager of corporate giving for a firm high on the Fortune 500 list. While we didn’t agree much on a range of issues, we were in surprising agreement on what constituted good grantmaking practice. Much to his chagrin, his giving program was situated solidly within the firm’s public relations department and this constrained him from carrying out those practices in his own funding.

For example, we agreed that multi-year grants are superior to annual grants. But from the public relations perspective, multi-year grants don’t cut the mustard: Awarding a three-year grant to a community group gives the company just one press opportunity to promote itself in the community, while annual grants give three. So it goes.

Many nonprofits accommodate such imperatives when seeking funding, whether from corporate giving programs or, indeed, from foundations. But the tradeoffs are often less benign and can present serious ethical and organizational dilemmas.

Recently, for example, Philip Rojc and David Callahan wondered whether certain groups’ dependence on grants from bank giving programs compromised their work. I encountered these concerns firsthand when staffing a Wall Street accountability campaign: groups working on community development and housing were key allies and yet were constrained in taking certain public actions because, in addition to receiving support from the banks, bank representatives sat on their boards of directors.

“When nonprofits working on economic equity issues get in bed with corporate donors, they may be inclined to moderate their views on these issues and be less critical of private-sector actors,” Rojc and Callahan wrote. “In this case, we’re talking about a financial services industry that has famously engaged in a range of predatory or abusive practices, some of which are ongoing. It stands to reason that asset building groups may be less inclined to call out the present or future bad behavior of banks if they depend on the largesse of these institutions. Yet such groups would seem to be obvious and critical watchdogs in this space.”

A recent case in Oregon illustrates the most serious kind of conflict: Threats of discontinued funding from companies whose bottom line becomes threatened by public policies their grantees support.

Standard Insurance Company, known as The Standard, has been (up until its recent purchase by a Japanese insurance group) a locally based Oregon corporation with an active community relations and giving program. Along with other corporate givers, however, The Standard has recently drawn sharp rebukes for trying to intimidate grantees and community groups into backing off their support for a November ballot measure that will increase corporate taxes to support Oregon’s perennially underfunded education system and social services. Oregon’s business taxes are tied for the lowest in the nation. Along with other major corporations, The Standard will see its taxes raised if the initiative passes, and it has been among the top contributors to the campaign to defeat the measure.

Several of those who’ve seen this intimidation by corporate givers firsthand have gone public, as reported by Willamette Week. Among them:

  • The Standard threatened to withhold future support from Children First for Oregon. As Willamette Week reported, “The Standard’s top government affairs official, Justin Delaney, acknowledges the company threatened in June to withhold support from Children First for Oregon, a Portland nonprofit.” While the company ultimately relented, the paper reports that Delaney wants grantees to think twice before they champion the initiative: “Nonprofits ought to give their corporate partners a hearing before reflexively supporting Measure 97.”
  • Intel, one of the top employers in Oregon and the beneficiary of enormous tax breaks, curtailed support for the Oregon League of Conservation Voters’ annual gala due to its potential backing of the measure. “Intel has been a longtime sponsor of OLCV’s annual fundraising dinner … providing amounts ranging from $2,500 to $25,000 in previous years.” This year, however, they provided zero dollars. As OLCV Director Doug Moore reported, they made it clear that if “the league was even thinking about supporting what would become Measure 97, Intel would not support this year’s event.”

When it comes to supporting ballot measure advocacy, NCRP is most frequently asked by both funders and nonprofits about the legal aspects of the work: How can they become involved and stay right with the IRS? We hear less frequently about this kind of direct financial impact from funders seeking to use their charitable giving as a cudgel. We hope that public exposure can counter this kind of intimidation. As Our Oregon’s Ben Unger puts it, “With state funding shrinking, many of these nonprofits have no choice but to fill the service gap by seeking funding from the very corporations that are not paying their share in taxes,” Unger says. “That any company would use that leverage to attempt to silence nonprofits is unacceptable.”

Dan Petegorsky is senior fellow at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), leading a civic engagement initiative. Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

CC image by wp paarz and http://www.weisspaarz.com/, modified under Creative Commons license.

It’s that time of year again. No, I’m not talking about fiery fall leaves or pumpkin pies, though I love those. I’m talking about The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s “Philanthropy 400.” For the uninitiated, this list represents the 400 U.S. nonprofits that raised the most (non-governmental) money in fiscal year 2014.

There’s a lot of good work included here. The Task Force for Global Health is in the top ten. Youth programs, cancer research and a score of universities populate the top 50. Dig into the latter hundreds and you’ll find organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund and the ACLU.

Yet here’s a truth givers of all stripes should know: Some of the most important work you can support today has never been on that list. The vital work I’m referring to takes many forms, and many causes, but it always has a few things in common.

It’s grounded in community. It’s unapologetically focused on changing the policies, cultural norms and systems that foster inequity. And it’s led by people who have faced the brunt of that injustice. At NCRP, we call them grassroots social justice advocates and community organizers: folks who are fighting every day, against all odds, for a better world for all of us. Yet despite their crucial work – or rather because of it – the vast majority are un- or underpaid.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for a wholesale rejection of the 400: simply a counterweight. The top 400 groups have increased their share of total annual giving over the last decade to about $1 for every $3.70 donated in America. This isn’t surprising. Large organizations tend to have greater capacity to promote their work, measure the outcomes and assign staff to collect donations. But such abilities are privileges that many organizations working alongside marginalized communities and tackling difficult topics simply don’t have.

So without further ado, here are seven ways givers can support grassroots efforts all across the country tackling the most entrenched injustices in our society. Many of these tips come from recommendations Black Lives Matter activists shared in a NCRP webinar earlier this year.

  • Support the leadership of people most affected by the issues they’re trying to solve. Though it’s vastly underfunded, the most cutting edge work today is being done by intersectional movements of people standing up to oppression. That includes people of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, undocumented persons, low-income individuals, people with disabilities and the formerly incarcerated.
  • Recognize that these efforts may look different than standard ways of doing things in the nonprofit sector – and that’s okay! Traditional nonprofit spaces can be inaccessible or downright alienating for people who have been disenfranchised. The Movement for Black Lives, for example, has no annual fundraising galas, rigid hierarchy or even a physical office space, but has fundamentally transformed our national conversation around race, justice and policing.
  • Remember that civic engagement is the bedrock of effective social change. From community organizing and policy advocacy to litigation and leadership development, it focuses on changing the systems of power that lock people out of opportunity, rather than chipping away at their byproducts. This work is 100 percent legal for nonprofits, as the Alliance for Justice’s Philanthropy Advocacy Playbook It’s also messy and courageous. Listen, and be willing to support new and untested ideas.
  • Give multi-year funding and general operating support. (Yes, that means overhead.) Such funds give leaders the stability and flexibility they need to act nimbly and strategically. Disappointingly, however, only 22 percent of the donors The Chronicle of Philanthropy surveyed prefer to support long-term goals. In fact, according to NCRP’s analysis of Foundation Center data through our “The Philanthropic Landscape” series, only 21 percent of all grant dollars in 2012 went to general operating support, and just 13 percent to multi-year funding.
  • Don’t get obsessed with number crunching. It’s notoriously difficult to quantify the value of advocacy, even though it’s the most effective long-term work you can engage in. When NCRP did measure, we found that the return on investment for advocacy and civic engagement was a whopping $115 for every $1 invested. Many groups allied with marginalized communities, however, aren’t going to have the capacity to show those numbers, and privileging the ones that can perpetuates a vicious cycle that keeps those communities under-resourced.
  • If you have an application process, keep it simple. Does the organization applying have to fill out 10 questions, five forms, three budgets and speak English fluently to have a chance to access the funds? If so, rethink the process.
  • Last but not least, remember that support can be more than financial. You can help make a difference by speaking out for equity, educating your peers and holding people accountable within the institutions and relationships you are a part of. For examples, check out the nearly 200 funders that have made that commitment explicit by signing on to Philanthropy’s Promise.

What do you think? How else can donors, grantmakers, and giving circles best support grassroots social change efforts? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Ben Barge is a field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

CC image by Chris Blakeley.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy on March 13, 2015.

Since last summer, a movement has been brewing in response to the police killings of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others. People across the country have taken to the streets, demanding changes in policies that contribute to government-sanctioned violence against African- Americans and Latinos.

People of color are leading this movement, as they should be, but they shouldn’t be expected to move this agenda forward by themselves. White people working in philanthropy are an important source of funding for nonprofits helping to organize on-the-ground efforts across the country, but it is essential that they take an active role, too. The future of our nation depends on our building a society that ensures everyone has an opportunity to thrive, regardless of race. Philanthropy has an important role to play in the coming months and years to help the movement bring about lasting progress.

Here are five simple steps that white leaders can take to promote racial justice:

Become educated about the issues. The burden of teaching you more about the realities of racial inequity does not lie with friends and colleagues who are not white. A plethora of research and information exists to help deepen understanding of the issues of race, including resources from Race Forward and the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity.

If you’re not voraciously and regularly reading pieces written by people who aren’t white, you’re missing out. African-American columnists like Charles Blow of The New York Times and commentators like Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic are two of my favorites.

Another way to educate yourself is to attend conference sessions and webinars designed by and focused on people of color. Too often, the annual dinner and lecture sponsored by the Association of Black Foundation Executives has perhaps only one or two white people in the room. The lecture is always fantastic, and it’s outrageous that so few white people attend. Incidentally, conference sessions about women or LGBTQ issues similarly have few, if any, straight white men in the room. This has to change. Go, listen, and learn.

Link racial justice to your foundation’s mission. No matter what issues your foundation is working to address, it’s likely that there is a connection to racial justice. It’s essential that you understand that connection and make it explicit. Engage board members in that discussion. Don’t put the burden of initiating this conversation on the people of color on your staff or board.

Hire and promote blacks, Hispanics, and other people of color for staff and trustee positions.

The latest data suggest that 16.5 percent of foundation trustees, 7.1 percent of foundation CEOs, and 15.4 percent of other full-time executive staff members at foundations are people of color. There are signs of improvement in these numbers, but the pace of change is glacial, and the record in philanthropy lags behind national trends.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonwhites made up 34 percent of the total U.S. labor force in 2012.

There are no good excuses for not actively seeking out talented people of color for top leadership roles. It’s been proven that greater diversity in groups leads to better decisions, especially in response to the kind of complex problems that foundations wrestle with every day. The D5 Coalition has research, a self-assessment tool, and other resources that can be helpful for any foundation that wants to diversify.

Building a diverse team of staff and trustees isn’t sufficient, however.

Foundations must also create inclusive environments to maintain diversity.

The Exit Interview by Association of Black Foundation Executives, shows how black professionals in philanthropy often feel isolated and excluded from growth opportunities. The Denver Foundation’s Inclusiveness Project offers a step-by-step guide for building an organization that is diverse and tolerant of differences.

Take a stand. One of the most important things you can do is put your personal reputation and your institution’s reputational capital on the line while standing strong for policies that promote racial justice.

The hard truth is that powerful white people often listen to other powerful white people. When you stand with grass-roots leaders of color without trying to speak for them or stealing their voice, you help them get heard.

It may not always be easy to speak truth to power in primarily white communities. It might be easier to do nothing. But the white clergy who marched at Selma offer a powerful example of why complacency should not be an option. You probably won’t have to do anything nearly as difficult, so what are you afraid of?

Provide unrestricted long-term support to grass-roots organizing groups. Offering flexible aid to organizing groups pushing for racial justice is perhaps the most important thing grant makers can do.

Foundation leaders believe they are more than just the purse that holds the money. But how you give money away and to whom you give it matters immensely. Foundations often want to control the agenda, but movement building starts by letting go and allowing communities and the nonprofits that serve them to determine what’s best.

Role models abound. The Hill-Snowdon Foundation provided critical funding that resulted in minimum-wage increases in two Maryland counties and the District of Columbia. The Woods Fund Chicago and the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation provided funding that resulted in expanded rights for immigrants in Illinois and Vermont. NoVo Foundation grantees helped secure an extension of the Violence Against Women Act. The California Endowment played a role in the passage and adoption of the Affordable Care Act, thereby expanding access to health care for millions.

Those are just a few examples of what is possible when foundations invest for the long term in grass-roots organizing.

This fight for racial justice is not a flash-in-the-pan moment. It’s a movement. Serious systemic change is a possibility. If you’re a white person working in philanthropy and you say you’re in favor of racial equity but then do nothing, you’re a hypocrite. It’s time to decide: What role will you play?

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP on Twitter.

This post originally appeared on the Alliance Magazine blog on January 30, 2015.

Trayvon Martin. Michael Brown. Eric Garner. Jordan Davis. Oscar Grant. Amadou Diallo. Sean Bell.

These are some of the most recognizable names of black people who have been killed by security officers in the United States, but only a small fraction of the total. The Malcolm X Grassroots Movement estimates that one black person is killed every 28 hours in the country by security officers. Over the past few years, a grassroots movement has emerged to end state violence against black people and other marginalized groups.

What is the role of foundations in this movement? The panelists on a recent webinar hosted by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, “Fueling the Movement: How Foundations Can Support the Fight for Racial Equity,” have offered some answers.

Moderated by NCRP executive director Aaron Dorfman, the webinar featured four panelists playing different roles in the growing movement:

Here are the top five themes that emerged from their conversation.

This intersectional movement is being led primarily by women, LGBTQ people, formerly incarcerated people and youth, and it needs to stay that way. All the presenters warned of the dangers of anchoring movements around charismatic, primarily straight, male leaders. History warns us of that model’s unsustainability, which encourages the tendency to elevate the needs of straight black men over those of others affected by state violence. Foundations can either perpetuate this phenomenon or correct it with how and who they choose to fund. Already the most recognizable victims of state violence are male. But the panelists celebrated leadership from other marginalized groups in this growing movement, and noted the importance of supporting and nurturing those leaders in order to build a successful, sustainable and inclusive movement.

General operating support and multi-year funding are essential for allowing movement leaders to respond quickly to opportunities that arise. Both Alicia and Zach recognized several foundations that have supported their work, especially their grassroots activities. They explained that general operating support and long-term funding is the best way to support the success of organizations that must respond quickly to changing situations. Alicia noted that she sometimes avoids foundation funding to remain flexible, but, as she put it, if foundations invest in “transformative rather than transactional” strategies, they can best support grassroots work.

Foundation staff and leaders can be organizers too! Foundations must work to examine and correct racial inequity from within, and to hold each other accountable. In addition to her role at Brooklyn Community Foundation, Tynesha is one of the organizers of Philanthropic Action for Racial Justice, a group of Black funders and intermediaries in philanthropy addressing how funders are supporting long-term solutions to issues such as state violence. She urged foundation staff and leaders to be courageous and explicit, calling out any institutional bias and racism unapologetically.

This is a long-term problem that requires long-term partnerships between foundations and grassroots leaders and organizations. Starsky spoke specifically about the unique partnership role that foundations can play in social justice movements. Foundations can lend legitimacy to the movement by standing with grassroots leaders. Philanthropic relationships can also generate unique research about the issues and to maximize the investment in grassroots leaders. All the speakers emphasized the importance of foundations following the direction of grassroots leaders. Community listening sessions and community-led grantmaking decisions are a few ways to ensure that power and leadership stays with community leaders.

Funding advocacy, policy reform, grassroots organizing, leadership development and community engagement are critical for impacting issues important to foundations. The panelists were very specific about how these activities need to be funded to sustain the growing racial equity movement. They also asserted that racial equity and ending state violence affect every issue a foundation might care about, and cannot be distilled into a single focus or program.

Check out the webinar recording here. And let us know in the comments: how is your foundation supporting the racial equity movement?

Jeanné Isler is field director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP and @j_lachapel