Summer 2004

What We've Learned
What's in a (Human Rights) Mission? - Part II

by Mark Lindberg

In the summer of 2000, the Otto Bremer Foundation adopted a mission statement that incorporated "promoting human rights" as a key tool in the work of social and economic justice. As described in a previous edition of Giving Forum, subsequent conversations with past grantees of the foundation indicated that many nonprofits were not aware of our mission, despite the time and care the board and staff put into developing our principal message. Perhaps that should not have been surprising. The foundation was just gaining its footing in terms of communicating its mission and developing a deeper understanding of what "rights-based" work meant in the context of grantmaking.

Since then, many people have asked us about the practical affect of the "human rights" mission, both for the foundation and for grantees. It is probably fair to say that the impact of framing our work with human rights language has had a greater impact on the foundation than on our grantees. Nevertheless, we are funding many of the same organizations we funded before we adopted the new mission statement. And, social and economic injustices are not going away. So, what's the point?

The changes for the foundation have been practical, programmatic and philosophical. Nearly every foundation receives more proposals than it can fund. We use the mission as a tool to screen proposals. Having the mission in place and using it consistently has made the screening process easier and more cogent. The human rights "lens" helps us understand the work of applicants in a different light.

What are we seeing? When it comes to a rights-based approach to social justice work and grantmaking, it might be useful to consider the work along a continuum of intentionality. On one end of the continuum, there are nonprofits that expressly link their work to human rights norms or treaties. Given the foundation's express interest in human rights, these organizations tend to be key strategic grantees of the foundation.

At the other end of the continuum, there are many organizations working in areas considered human rights, strictly speaking, but the organizations carrying out the work do not really use human rights as either a method or a standard for their work. Mainstream organizations providing support in areas such as affordable housing, health care and education might fall into this large category. We still fund many such organizations doing work in these areas.

But it is organizations situated somewhere in the "middle" of this continuum that perhaps provides the greatest insight into what we have learned, and how we operate differently. These organizations, which are growing in number, bring a distinct "rights-based" approach to their work. But because they may not call it that, we tend to look for characteristics or underlying values of work that enable people to claim the rights that are already theirs, rather than look for specific human rights language in the proposal.

For instance, an important aspect of a rights-based approach to social justice work includes having those affected by issues be the agents — rather than the objects — of change. In this light, nonprofits and funders alike are forced to move from an old-school impulse of focusing on "needy" individuals or communities to a strength-based approach that recognizes the dignity and power of people in the community. Another key feature of a rights-based approach includes work that addresses underlying causes of discrimination or inequality. By doing so, we are forced to move from a charity mentality to one that desires to address change systemically.

Organizations that solely provide services tend not to focus their work in those ways. That is not to say there is no role for such organizations. But nonprofits that fail to consider these factors may, at the least, be difficult to sustain, and at their worst, may be perpetuating classism, racism or other forms of repression or dependency through their work. Using a human rights lens, it has been increasingly easier to identify these considerations within individual proposals.

A rights-based approach has also had a profound impact on the evolution of our programmatic focus areas. Our two substantive focus areas, shelter and health care access, are described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as essential aspects to an adequate standard of living. The foundation's focus on organizational effectiveness, which has provided support for traditional capacity-building efforts such as board development and strategic planning, is now actively seeking proposals from nonprofits interested in strengthening their capacity to communicate and advocate for change at the grassroots level and in public policy arenas.

A deeper understanding of human rights standards and methods has also led the foundation to recently identify "civic engagement" as a new focus area. Without authentic opportunities for all people to be involved in different aspects of civil society, from neighborhood organizations and school boards to labor unions and city councils, the language of human rights is reduced to rhetoric. Rights-related values of constituency control, inclusivity, nondiscrimination and dignity have almost enabled both trustees and staff to view these programmatic developments as part of an organic process - even if we did not completely understand the entire vision of the mission statement when it was adopted originally.

It is too early to tell whether a sufficient number of nonprofits will embrace human rights as an essential tool to address social and economic justice issues in the United States. Current challenges of relevance and language mirror a history that has not been kind to a domestic human rights movement. However, at this time of profound political differences, fragmented grassroots advocacy, and professionalized service providers operating in silos, the Otto Bremer Foundation is trying to work with communities to identify a vision that is more expansive, participatory and integrated in its approach. Human rights is one way to do that.

© Copyright 2004 Minnesota Council on Foundations
Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited.

Top