Voices in Philanthropy

Source: Minnesota Council on Foundations 04/26/2011

Talking About Privilege

Rowzat Shipchandler, Racial Equity Manager, Minnesota Community Foundation and The Saint Paul Foundation

When the topic of racism comes up, people often ask: “Isn’t racism a thing of the past? We’ve had the Civil Rights Movement. People now have equal opportunity.”

Advantages Based on Race Still Exist
As the manager of a racial equity initiative at The Saint Paul Foundation, I respond by saying that racism is still very much with us today. Racism just takes on a different form than it did in the past. The laws allowing for explicit segregation are gone, but privileges or advantages based on race still exist. I believe that privilege is the main reason for the persistence of discriminatory behaviors, which in turn lead to Minnesota’s stark racial disparities.

Before being able to explore privilege, it is important to recognize how difficult it is to talk about this topic and the necessity of setting aside the time and space to do so. The Saint Paul Foundation’s Facing Race: We’re all in this together^® initiative created a series of dialogues that explore various aspects of this complex social issue of racism. Both of our current dialogue offerings – New Conversations About Race and Racism^® and New Conversations^® About White Privilege – explore the idea of privilege and its effects on people and institutions.

Our dialogues build off the work of Wellesley College Professor Peggy McIntosh, with whom we have worked closely to develop new tools. McIntosh defines privilege as unearned advantage. There are many different types of privilege systems – race, class, gender, disability. We have chosen to focus on race because it is an enormous one for our community and country.

Dialogues Reveal the Personal Impact of Privilege
Although privilege extends beyond the actions of individuals to how society itself is structured, there are very personal ways in which people are affected by having or not having privilege. Examples of personal statements about white privilege include: “People do not mistake me for a client at the social service agency where I’m employed,” or “I can count on my name not to work against me when applying for a job – especially in terms of how likely it is I will be scheduled for an interview.”

I facilitate a number of the New Conversations dialogues and hear first-hand about people’s experiences. Privilege is often invisible to those who have it. Many white people haven’t had to think a great deal about race and are uncomfortable examining their own advantage. People often tend to focus on disadvantage, rather than on the flip side – advantage or privilege. People of color often don’t like to be reminded of the privileges that they don’t have because it is a painful subject.

Awareness is only the first step in addressing the issue of privilege. Participants in our dialogues, especially those who are white, are asked to think about what they can do next. Again we draw on the work of McIntosh, who likens privilege to a bank account that white people did not ask for, but can choose to spend in the name of justice. We talk about how the problem of racism is enormous, but that there are steps we can individually take to dismantle it. Participants generate a range of responses, which include becoming more aware, talking to friends and colleagues about the dialogue, speaking out against racism, asking how institutional policies affect people of color, or changing hiring processes.

Organizations Must Understand Privilege – Then Act
Our dialogues engage participants as individuals, but a similar process can be used by organizations. Because privilege can be invisible to those who have it, we believe that organizations with a mission of strengthening community should be equipped with skills that enable them to identify how privilege operates in their own sphere.

Understanding privilege can help the people in the nonprofit and public sectors have more empathy and understanding of what clients and communities of color face. For example, social service agencies providing employment counseling or grantmakers funding such programs can be more effective if they realize that white people still have advantages in the employment market (and there are multiple research studies that show that they do) in relationship to people of color. Insight like this helps us understand a societal reason for why finding a job is easier for some people than others.

If we are able to move forward to the uncomfortable place of examining our own organizations, then we can use the concept of privilege to understand how we might use our organization’s influence and resources to decrease racism. For example, a grantmaker could analyze its grant data to determine if its grant guidelines and application processes reinforce or help eliminate privilege. How do predominantly white organizations fare in the selection process compared to organizations of color? Additionally, nonprofits, public entities and corporations can reflect on how their hiring or vendor selection processes might give unfair advantage to certain groups.

Once an organization becomes aware of actions that support privilege, it can do something to change this behavior. For example, after some internal examination, The Saint Paul Foundation was able to increase its unrestricted grantmaking in communities of color between 1994 and 2004 by adding specific strategies to achieve just that.

Making these changes isn’t always easy, but they help bring us closer to the goal of having a community in which everyone is safe, valued and respected.

Rowzat Shipchandler leads the Facing Race: We’re all in this together^® initiative. For more information about dialogue offerings, articles written for The Saint Paul Foundation by Peggy McIntosh, and other tools and resources offered by Facing Race, visit www.facingracing.org. Most services are free to individuals and organizations in Minnesota.  

GF

Moving From Theory to Action

Kevin Walker, President and CEO, Northwest Area Foundation

In the summer of 2009, the Northwest Area Foundation (NWAF) participated in a Montana Funders Tour, in which national and regional funders spent a week in the state, learning about innovative and effective nonprofit efforts. Gary Cunningham, our vice president of programs, represented NWAF.

During the informal conversation that occurs in such settings, Gary found himself visiting with senior staff from other large funders, who were expressing a certain amount of frustration and pessimism about funding in Indian country. Such sentiments are not rare in philanthropy. Less than one-half of one percent of philanthropic dollars in the U.S. flow to Native communities. At NWAF we have come to believe that mainstream funders’ assumptions and beliefs about the futility of such work are part of the problem. If I had been there myself, I probably would have tuned out these comments and assumed these funders, though I think highly of them on a personal level, were not likely partners for NWAF’s work in Indian country, which is central to our mission.

But Gary did the opposite. He asked them to say more about their impressions. He told them that our organization has a more positive and hopeful sense of how foundations can support meaningful work in Native communities.

And Gary asked them if they’d be interested in being part of a larger conversation – a roundtable on foundations and Indian country, in which non-Native funders would come together with resource people from reservation and urban Indian communities to see if we could reframe the relationship between mainstream foundations and American Indians.

These peer funders said they’d be interested – and when Gary sent out follow-up queries, the circle of interested funders turned out to be much wider than we
expected.

In 2010, NWAF and the Montana-based Foundation for Community Vitality co-hosted two retreat-like roundtable meetings in which funders conferred with a diverse array of Native resource people – urban-based and reservation-based; younger and older; community-based nonprofit professionals and representatives of Native-led funding organizations – to talk about the values and principles that should guide the next generation of engagement between foundations and Indian country. The second roundtable was attended by more than 20 foundations.

Tony Genia, a senior program officer at NWAF, and his fellow program officer Martin Jennings are leading this effort to encourage a movement toward building strong relationships and effective grantmaking in Indian Country. In Tony’s words, “We’re encouraged and humbled by what we’re learning and by what we’re hearing from other funders around the country.”

The funders and Native leaders who met at the two 2010 roundtables not only addressed the fractured and little-understood world of Native grantmaking, they began framing a powerful and hopeful vision for 2030. This is a visual map that helps us all see where we fit in this movement. As Tony says, “It’s a picture that outlines what Native peoples and funders want to achieve in healthcare, education, business, spirituality and more. Funders can see where their missions intersect with this vision, and how they will benefit from the grantor-grantee relationship long-term.”

This is very much a work in progress, but we’ve moved from theory to action.

NWAF and others are working on specific funding strategies that fit within the frame we developed together. For example, in 2011, NWAF will focus a portion of our grantmaking on Native social entrepreneurship to model how foundations can use this vision.

The foundation will also continue to reach out to other funders. We’re looking to the sector to shape funding approaches that build upon the assets, culture and aspirations of Native communities. Even at this early stage, funders and Native leaders recommend using principles of reciprocity, humility, mutual trust, taking the long view, and a deep respect for history and context.

It’s a start. We’re eager to have others contribute their insights, questions, ideas and energies to this much-needed effort.

I’m very proud of NWAF’s leadership role in this endeavor, and of the energy, creativity and vision that Gary, Martin and Tony have brought to the work. 

GF

Building Democratic Philanthropy: AAPIP and the National Gender & Equity Campaign

Bo Thao-Urabe, Senior Director, BRIDGE (Building Responsive Infrastructure to Develop Global Equity)/National Gender & Equity Campaign

AAPIP (Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy) plays a unique role in giving voice to Asian American and Pacific Islander communities within organized and individual philanthropy by building greater access to and driving increased philanthropic capital to communities for social change.

Lao Assistance Center of Minnesota (LACM), a grantee of Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP), holds a listening session where community members naturally congregate and are comfortable in South Minneapolis’ Phillips neighborhood. Town hall-style meetings weren’t effective because people didn’t speak about their realities; instead, they listened and turned to LACM and others to define solutions. LACM changed strategies to encourage community members to talk about their hopes and challenges and to suggest solutions.

Last year, as AAPIP celebrated its 20th anniversary, we developed a new overarching framework to capture our current and future work: Building Democratic Philanthropy draws on the assets of communities and calls on organized philanthropy and individuals to actively engage the voices of impacted communities as the starting place for creating any blue print.

The best expression of building democratic philanthropy at AAPIP is our work in the National Gender & Equity Campaign (NGEC) and BRIDGE (Building Responsive Infrastructure to Develop Global Equity), a multifaceted and long-term community-building partnership. The idea behind NGEC/BRIDGE is simple: To achieve a more just and equitable society, make deep, strategic and flexible investments in the community; connect theory to practice by providing relevant and responsive capacity-building support and analysis; and most importantly, get out of the way, so that the full potential of communities can be realized.

Since 2007, AAPIP has made grants totaling more than $1.6 million dollars in Minnesota with additional capacity-building investments. We see great signs of hope as the community groups we work with create new and powerful responses to address the most pressing issues facing their communities, as well as take ownership in crafting long-term social change strategies because they now feel they are a part of defining and practicing democracy.

As we go forward, AAPIP will continue to contribute to the field of philanthropy by developing new frameworks, tools and practices that help funders revisit how we are collectively investing in building community to advance social justice.

For more about NGEC/BRIDGE, go to www.genderandequity.org, or visit www.aapip.org. 

GF

What It Takes to Lead in Diversity and Inclusivity

David Nicholson, Program Director, Headwaters Foundation for Justice

Q: How do diversity work and inclusive practices make Headwaters a more effective grantmaker?

Wanting to address alarming disparities in education, health and other areas, individuals from the African American communities have come together to learn and collaborate. The African American Leadership Forum (AALF) is not a formal organization, but an ideal and an effort to build collective voice on issues. Headwaters Foundation for Justice supports AALF with administrative and organizational support.

One of our keys to effectiveness is our commitment to leadership development. Our longest-standing effort is our community-led grantmaking process. Volunteers from the communities we seek to support lead all aspects of our grantmaking – they review proposals, go on site visits and make funding recommendations to our board. This allows us to tap the community’s wisdom and knowledge about what issues are important and how a community views success.

Q: A chicken-and-egg question: Do you put money into a community first so you can start relationships, or do you engage people to be leaders who then help you find good organizations to support?

We take a “both/and” approach. We recruit volunteers from the communities we seek to support, and by providing grants in those communities, we form partnerships that provide deeper access and insight into communities.

Q: Are good leaders hard to find?

Yes and no. Good leaders are always in high demand and often are overcommitted because of their abilities, capacity and community standing. That said, Headwaters is viewed as an organization that identifies, uses and develops leaders, so we often have a waiting list of volunteers who want to serve on our grants committee.

A profile of that committee will give you an understanding of how deeply we believe in inclusion: Most of our grants committee members are under age 30, from communities of color, and have more than five years of community organizing experience. In addition, our committee has broad representation of skills and approaches to racial, economic, environmental and social justice.

Rather than stop at diversity, we strive for inclusion. To hold ourselves accountable, 10 years ago, the Headwaters board set benchmarks that the majority of our board members be people of color, 60 percent women, and 30 percent LGBT. These demographic goals ensure that we move beyond representation to organizational ownership by the communities we seek to support.

Serving for three to six years on our grants committee is the beginning of the leadership ladder, not the end. We use this committee to find Headwaters board members and other key volunteer positions within our organization, such as the investments, communications and fundraising committees.

Q: Does leading in diversity and inclusivity require certain competencies?

Being humble is a core competency for any leader. Leaders must also recognize their own power and privilege and understand how to use these in respectful ways. This is critical. We all have privilege; how much changes depending on who’s in the room. The reality is, as foundation staff, we often walk into a room bringing a lot of privilege and thus a lot of power. At Headwaters, we emphasize using our power and privilege “with” rather than “to.” For example, we can convene – facilitating communities and individuals coming together for the common good.

Another competency is working with the “other.” While it is human nature to hang out with people who look and think like us and have similar backgrounds, we must push ourselves to have relationships with many communities. At Headwaters, we believe that difference is an asset that needs to be cultivated. We seek to be intentional about getting to know people and organizations, so we can identify strengths and resources from all communities.

Leading also means bringing people together to find common ground. Right now, there isn’t a lot of alignment. Leaders also must be interested in advancing systems thinking, to understand how things work in our society. For example, we talk about racial disparity, and that’s where the conversation ends; but that’s where it should begin. Systems thinkers would ask such questions as, “What are the drivers that allow the maintenance of racial inequities in rates of school graduation, incarceration and employment?” And then, they’d address those.

Minnesota has been really blessed by a generous philanthropic community – individually and institutionally. Great grantmaking has addressed many issues. But we need to take the time and attention to reflect on what we’ve learned. Leading means taking a look at what’s worked, why it’s worked, and even, what does “worked” mean.

Q: Can you give an example of a recent Headwaters leadership initiative?

About two years ago, a group of individuals from the African American communities wanted to learn and work together to improve the conditions for the entire community. This is not a new effort; rather it builds on a long-standing tradition of local and national collective action.

Driven by alarming rates of disparity – and wanting to address the underlying problems in education, community development and health – the African American Leadership Forum (AALF) has become a place where individuals can come together to build and strengthen the African American community. AALF is not a formal organization, but an ideal and an effort to build a collective voice on issues. AALF sought out Headwaters to provide administrative and organizational support, which has allowed the forum to grow from 120 individuals to nearly 450. In the near future, AALF will unveil a draft of an agenda, a list of perspectives and priorities, coming from, by and for the African American community.

Q: Is being a person of color a prerequisite for being a leader in diversity and inclusivity?

No. People are people, and anyone regardless of race, creed, ethnicity or sexual identity can have a closed and narrow mind. Your question implies that it is about “race,” when in fact, it is about values. More to the point, it is about ensuring that foundation practices reflect core values.

For example, I believe that gathering diverse viewpoints, people and ideas is critical to developing solutions that will work for more than just a few. The next step is intentionally creating processes that include all differences as equally valuable; that is the process of creating inclusivity. Philanthropy is the research and development labs of our society. When foundations are at their best, they can test assumptions and develop new insights and solutions to the most vexing social ills. To do that effectively, foundations and staff need to lead in diversity (bringing together different and varied parts) and inclusivity (integrating those differences into something stronger, better).

The path to that leadership is different for everyone. Speaking for myself, I have been blessed and informed by being a person of color. And speaking for Headwaters, having people of color who are also thoughtful leaders has helped us find and live those values and practices and allowed us access to the insights of people who have diverse perspectives and who want to make society more integrated.

To flip your question is to ask, “How can people from a majority value include minority perspectives?” My recipe for that is rather simple; but it’s hard work. First, develop self-awareness, a deep understanding of your core values, assumptions and beliefs. Then, surround yourself with people who have very different values and beliefs; empower them to challenge you and how you see the world. If you have done your work well, you will truly see and understand “the other”; now you can choose to value it or not. If you choose to value the difference as your own, then the next step – seeking out difference (diversity) and integrating difference (inclusivity) – is easy. If you value the “other,” you will value their perspectives. 

GF

Return to Giving Forum Spring 2011