Enter your email address below to receive current MMT news and weblog posts delivered to your inbox.
There's a lot of talk going around these days about foundation accountability. (See this summary article on the Chronicle of Philanthropy website.) The call for more scrutiny might intensify given the fact that the current economic crisis is being blamed at least partly on loose regulation and lax oversight.
One of the voices for reform is the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, which "promotes philanthropy that serves the public good, is responsive to people and communities with the least wealth and opportunity, and is held accountable to the highest standards of integrity and openness."
According to NCRP, only one-third of giving by large foundations benefits “marginalized communities,” (impoverished people, racial minorities, disabled people, and women) while too much charitable money goes to “patronage giving” that only serves the elite of society by supporting arts institutions and universities.
As we hope you know, MMT is committed to transparency and accountability, so we took this opportunity to take a look at ourselves. We compiled lists of the organizations that had received the largest amounts in grants from us, and compared our past and more recent recipients.
We think there are some clear and compelling differences between top recipients over the first 20 years and the past six years. Rather than point them out, we'd like to ask you to look over the two lists and comment on what strikes you. What do you observe about "marginalized communities" vs. "patronage giving"?
A few months ago, legislation was proposed in California that would have required foundations to track and make public the racial and ethnic composition of their board and staff members and beneficiaries of their grantmaking. Some have suggested this should be a federal requirement.
What's your take? Should all foundations be required to direct funds to "marginalized communities"? Should they continue to be able to fund any group they choose, even if it only benefits "elite audiences"? Should foundations be required to disclose racial and ethnic composition?
And how do you think we're doing?
Please note: The comment period on this entry has expired
The NCRP is certainly entitled to its point of view, but they would be more persuasive if they would re-read the portion of their mission statement about "integrity" and apply a little more intellectual integrity to their own pronouncements. It does nothing to advance the analysis to use loaded terms like "elite society" without looking at details of how grant monies are spent and the role of the arts and educational institutions in society (by the way, when did elite become a bad word to be pronounced only with a sneer?). Does a grant to the Oregon Symphony to teach, do workshops, and perform in the Coos Bay public schools "only serve the elite in society?" Does a grant to Portland State University to provide need-based scholarships to low income students "only serve the elite in society?" Does a grant to Northwest Professional Dance Project to work with children at Boys & Girls Clubs and Doernbecher Hospital "only serve the elite in society?" Is the support of arts and culture inappropriate, especially in a state that ranks at the very bottom of public support for the arts? (The slogan of the NEA is that a great nation deserves great art. I would argue that a nation that does not support arts and culture cannot be a great nation, since arts and culture are the foundation of society.) Is the support of education inappropriate and not in the public interest? And what about support of environmental organizations--they do not make the list of NCRP's preferred beneficiaries. I would be the last to suggest that "marginalized communities" are not worthy of support, and the foundations on which I serve can be proud of their records in this area (the support is well above the 1/3 cited by NCRP), but it does no one a service to degrade other societal needs, to ignore overall sources of support (including government programs, churches, etc.), or to suggest that the arts and education are not fundamental to our future.
At first, this sounds like a great idea, diversity is, after all, one of the few virtues held by a group instead of being limited an individual. Such a proposed policy may encourage institutions and organizations to recruit board members for a more diverse board. A desired state indeed. But what does skin color have to do with character, much less the skills and enthusiasm demanded of strong boards that both govern and lead?
What's more is that the notions of race and ethnicity are so slippery, the census borough redefines then nearly every ten years. And when such a policy proposal needs to draw the lines around what diversity is, will they know if we're a melting pot or mosaic? I don't. The point is that, even if the policy goes forward, the implementation lacks feasibility. Better to encourage passionate and skilled leaders of any color to join boards, rather than demand it from the top down.
There is some merit in all the stated positions - pro and con - concerning proposals desiring that philanthropy be highly responsive to the community's needs.
However, as with most issues of a regulatory nature, the devil is in the details.
I'd like to believe that, with calm deliberation and dialogue among all interested parties, we should be able to address the concerns raised by groups who desire more tightened rule making for philanthropy and those who oppose it.
I think Terry Pancoast has it right. I wonder how deep the NCRP dug into the usage of grant funds by recipient organizations.
Frankly in my uninformed opinion I am unable to determine much difference between the first 20 year MMT recipients and those of the past 6 years.
I think there is not much information in the name of a great many organizations.
It seems there are several dynamics at play here--around equal access, what's in the community's interest, and the value of legislating change.
For me, the core issue is about noticing when some parts of our community have more access to funding than others, and being thoughtful about removing unintentional barriers. (I don't know any foundation staffer that doesn't want to fund in diverse cultural communities, for example, but many who aren't sure how to build relationships in communities different from their own.)
I'm a big fan of foundations asking themselves (and their communities) about barriers that exist in their own systems, and building the skills & capacity to address gaps. My sense is that the push to legislate is coming from folks who have grown tired of not seeing foundations ask themselves those questions. Fortunately, one benefit of the push to legislate is that more foundations are becoming more pro active.
I agree with Terry that arts & education are critical to community health, and that there are many great arts & education programs that are based in and serving 'marginalized' communities. It's a false dichotomy to suggest we have to choose between funding education and funding entire communities. That's why conversations like this one that help us tease out different interlocking dynamics for careful consideration are helpful.
For those who are interested, there have been national studies that consistently document low levels of foundation support for organizations based in communities of color relative to the proportion those communities are of the population as a whole. There's some interest in doing local research to find out what the trends are in Oregon. So we will likely be having more of these conversations in the months & years ahead.
Thank you so much for all your comments. Very interesting discussion so far!
Rich, you make a good point that the changes in MMT's grantmaking aren't necessarily clear from the names of the organizations. In the more recent grant recipient list, there is a much higher representation of "marginalized communities" through grants for affordable housing, inner city youth-serving organizations, basic human services to people with very low incomes, etc.
There is a greater representation of organizations outside the Portland metro area as well. Environmental organizations also appear on the second list, but not on the first.
Thanks for getting this conversation started! As a foundation director I'm looking forward to reading people's comments.
Most foundations have a goal of helping to create a better community. When our grants are directed to groups that are already privileged in US society, we have to question how effective we're being at strengthening the community as a whole. That doesn't mean folks shouldn't fund the arts or universities; just that we'll be more effective at fulfilling our missions if we ensure that people who traditionally have less access to wealth find it very easy to access our funding programs.
MRG has found it useful to gather information about the organizations we fund, including the ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation of the folks in leadership. We use that information internally to help us monitor how well we are reaching different communities and identify potential trends and gaps early on.
Marjory Hamann
MRG Foundation