Can philanthropy create greater racial equity and social justice?

Posted on November 14, 2011 by

Good question.  And what do “success” and “progress” look like?   These are two questions we at Effective Communities pursued over five years, with support from the Ford Foundation.

Pathways to Progress: Focusing Philanthropy on Racial Equity and Social Justice (pdf) is the culmination of this work, drawing lessons from Ford’s portfolio of grants, “Community Philanthropy and Racial Equity in the American South.”

Formerly a website and now a downloadable document, “Pathways to Progress” presents broad strategies by which progress gets made in social change efforts using philanthropic resources.   We think it has application to addressing a variety of inequities, not only those framed in racial terms.

The analysis is based on reflective conversations conducted by our team (including Betty Emarita and Dr. Vanessa Stephens) with nearly 100 philanthropic organizations operating in both African American and White American settings.  We grounded our inquiry in the ultimate goal of closing “gaps” or “disparities”– those long-standing differences in group averages that indicate inequitable or unfair public systems and private market performance – and the challenge to philanthropy to help in that work.

What do philanthropic organizations do to close such gaps?  We present six pathways to progress that summarize how philanthropic resources are used with the intent, ultimately, of creating improvements to the benefits or outcomes along more equitable lines.   The six pathways:

  1. Preparing the organization to address tough issues like social justice and racial equity
  2. Building trust – talking safely and listening productively to difficulties and opportunities
  3. Advancing solutions that stand to close disparities
  4. Strengthening relationships, networks, and leadership
  5. Increasing resources that can be deployed to address disparities and gaps
  6. Combining the above to move the needles that measure system performance

The six pathways are not intended to be undertaken serially.  Rather, they represent interconnected strands that combine and recombine at different points, as with DNA, to produce a level of effort that moves those needles or metrics indicating the state of our systems.  If there’s not much interconnection of efforts, real change is unlikely to happen.

For each of the six pathways, we present a set of promising practices drawing on examples from the field as well as links to practitioner organizations.  We also include benchmarks by which initiatives to reduce inequity can be measured as well as links to short essays and tools allowing you to go deeper on key topics, including papers written by our team.

The answer to our opening question is “Yes, philanthropy can help.”  If only the piecemeal or independent efforts that currently dot the landscape could be strung together more intentionally to create more powerful efforts that create collective impact – impact that actually moves the needles indicating more equitable system and market performance –we’d see real progress, and much more effective use of philanthropic resources.

Using the Pathways as the backdrop or lens for creating meaningful strategy – making grants that collectively produce efforts with real power behind them — could make a big difference.    Some of this thinking is elaborated in Wanted: Better Evaluation Practices for Better Philanthropy.

More impactful philanthropy requires a style different from the prevailing one, which involves piecemeal, independent, and scattered efforts.   Our communities need sustained, change-focused efforts that engage a variety of essential players pushing together against the creaky mechanisms that maintain the status quo.  My hope is that foundations are open to inviting and receiving such proposals.

You can download “Pathways to Progress” here.

# # #

Steven E. Mayer / November 14, 2011

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evaluating “Occupy Wall Street”

Posted on October 27, 2011 by

Like many, I’m intrigued by this Occupy Wall Street movement.  And why not?  It purports to voice both the pain and the interests of the 99% of Americans who are harmed by the richest 1%.  Disclosure: I’m not one of the 1%.   Who are the 99%?  By definition, it includes almost all of us, so in this post I’ll be saying Us and We in addition to “the 99%,” just to honor their basic premise.  And OWS intends, it seems, to put pressure on those in positions of influence to fix the systems that have created these disparities that have damaged our society.

As this blog  is active at the confluence of philanthropy, justice, and evaluation, it would seem the OWS movement is fair game for discussion.  Though OWS has allegedly fuzzy goals and no apparent management structure as traditionally understood, does that mean it can’t be evaluated?   No.

In the spirit of advancing the state of the art of evaluating social change movements (a very undeveloped art at this point), I would put forward three criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of this particular movement at this particular point in time.  I base these solely on my own understanding of OWS as gleaned from the media and reading the signs, and not any insider knowledge.  

1) Growing recognition and ownership of OWS’ message.  Job One of OWS seems to be to help “the 99%” recognize the ways we’ve been abused by The System, and to be in touch with our outrage enough to demand changes in the ways The System works.  An evaluation question is, then, Is there growing recognition that the issues OWS is talking about relates to each of us, as members of the 99%?  Do I know the list of particular abuses OWS says we have experienced at the hands of the 1%?  Some, but not clearly.  And do I share in the feeling of unfairness that such abuse creates?  Yes, but I’m not sure I know how to express my outrage appropriately or productively.  So, OWS has some work to do, if my own data points are illustrative.  Carefully worded surveys and focus group discussions should provide evidence of how well OWS’ message has penetrated the hearts and minds of those it intends to speak for.

2) Growing support of the movement.   Support of the movement can be measured in many ways, not just the obvious one of crowd size (which may even be the least valid indicator of OWS success).  Evidence that could be gleaned from well-crafted surveys or polls: Numbers of people listening with an intent to understand; numbers of people identifying with intent of OWS, and cheering it on; numbers of people supporting participants with food, shelter, money, etc; numbers of people passing on the messages of OWS to others; growing access to media of various types and to people, institutions, or networks of influence.  Measuring a “groundswell of support” is an underdeveloped art, but we all know such a groundswell when we feel it.

3) Growing influence of the movement.  It may not be realistic to expect OWS, as a protest movement, to produce specific proposals or plans for fixing the systems.  Fixing the systems is more the job of people who own and keep the systems.  At this point, such people haven’t felt the desirability of moving ahead with such a change agenda.  OWS could be evaluated, then, on how well it makes its grievances known such that those with influence in policy setting circles take constructive action that closes the alleged systemic disparities at the heart of OWS’ message.  At this point, the media have provided a good deal of coverage of this movement.   Other signs of progress:  the conversation has changed, not just in the media but also at café gatherings, tailgating events, and cocktail parties.  As for influence that goes beyond talk into the realms where policy and practice can change, OWS hasn’t succeeded, to my knowledge,  much beyond head-scratching by those in charge, who ask themselves bemusedly, “What do these people want?”

In writing this blog, I find myself giving OWS passing grades so far, and recommending that greater effectiveness will come when OWS pushes out on the above three criteria.  The three sort of cascade, the first enabling the second, which enables the third.  The first is key, and so far underdeveloped, in my opinion.  Until there’s greater movement on all three fronts, OWS is little more than a consciousness-raising event.  Which isn’t all ineffectual…

# # #

Steven E. Mayer / Effective Communities Project / October 27, 2011

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Too complicated for the average grant maker?

Posted on September 29, 2011 by

A reader suggests my Mittenthal principle is perhaps too complicated for the average grant maker, or the average nonprofit applicant.  I don’t think so.  True, it asks the applicant to focus on two things: on how best to deliver a valuable service to its constituents, and also on how to ratchet up the capabilities of its organization at the same time.  Developing these simultaneously actually saves both the applicant and the grantmaker time and energy, and allows it to put the organization on a firmer footing.

Consider a charity that provides hot meals.  Maybe it could design a project that not only provides hot meals but also, in the process of developing this project, allows it to create stronger connections with local food sources it didn’t have before, that can be drawn on in the future.  Or maybe it could be done in ways that give it another card to play in its communications and fund-raising efforts, or its board development efforts.  These “outcomes” strengthen the organization above and beyond what a simple grant to provide hot meals in its usual way achieves.

Or consider an advocacy organization that wants to grade its state legislature’s work – creating a legislative report card while at the same time using the grant to train legislative aides, to attract new donors who care about legislative issues, and to create stronger advocacy efforts.  Such a grant yields much greater benefit per charitable dollar spent.

The Mittenthal principle encourages grantmakers to coax multiple benefits from their grants and grantees, and helps grow the organizational capacities of the nonprofits  it cares about.

A project that delivers something important can be designed to strengthen at least one of these important organizational capacities:

  • Increasing board and/or staff skills
  • Creating efficiencies in program or financial administration
  • Raising financial or political capital
  • Strengthening connections with allied organizations or agencies
  • Communications with key stakeholders
  • Positioning and marketing the organization

Maybe we could host a competition, the next version of Effective Communities Project‘s  Effies (TM) Award for Effective Philanthropic Practice.  We could award prizes to organizations that maximize organizational gains from a single grant.  The most organizational strengthening from a project grant gets first prize.  If someone would step up with prize money, we could award more than just publicity to notable efforts.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment