Robert Espinoza
Funders for LGBTQ Issues
www.lgbtfunders.org

As a frame for foundation effectiveness, “diversity and inclusion” have captivated many in the philanthropic sector. That frame rightfully recognizes that resolving complex issues requires a plurality of voices—and much of the early research suggests that multiple perspectives diminish groupthink, enhance office culture, and strengthen external institutional relationships.

Further, as an attempt to diversify the composition of philanthropy’s leadership, a diversity frame resonates among those of us who experience the unequal playing field birthed by our country’s legacy of structural racism—from slavery to the forced displacement of Native people to generations of harsh, segregationist policies. Compounding this inequality are the various forces of economic injustice, rigid gender roles, and the wide range of barriers facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people. For many of us, our lives become portraits of depleted opportunity, shortened life spans, crushing poverty, poor health outcomes, verbal and physical violence, and widespread discrimination.

It’s worsened by our collective underrepresentation as decision-makers in most spheres of political and economic power. When rooted in this knowledge, the diversity frame affirms that our communities should be critical actors in the foundation world—especially at the CEO, director, and trustee levels. And here, too, the frame bespeaks impact; marginalized communities carry the hard-earned wisdom to redress complex and entrenched social issues. A health foundation that heeds the advice of LGBTQ people would find that diversifying its grantmaking could address disproportionate high rates of substance abuse, poor mental health, and HIV/AIDS among largely poor and low-income LGBTQ communities—as well as the consequences of health care discrimination or a general lack of health insurance. Healthy outcomes, for sure, require a healthy discourse.

But in its current posture, as an effort to engage the widest spectrum of grantmakers, does the mainline “diversity and inclusion” approach have enough teeth? And what concrete issues should a sector rooted in opportunity and equity chew on?

For starters, the diversity in grantmaking conversation needs a clearer, more principled definition. Defined too broadly, “diversity” conflates categories associated with historical inequality (race, class, gender identity, sexuality) with categories that merely denote difference (political partisanship, personality type). It assures a room full of people that everyone’s perspective matters yet incorrectly infers that everyone’s perspective is equal.

Contributing to this oversimplification is that diversity efforts rarely historicize problems to understand how political and economic power has been allocated across generations. A historical lens on “diversity” reveals how long-term shifts in the law, values, attitudes, demographics, and the economy produced and reproduced the inequities we see today. If diversity’s goal is an effective seating arrangement of perspectives—or an entire new table arrangement, as some would argue—it might first ask: How exactly have people of color, women, and LGBTQ people (not mutually exclusive categories) been shut out of leadership across civil society, government, and the private sector? And then it might use these historical lessons to shape its institutional vision, broaden its grantmaking portfolio, and diversify its internal composition.

It doesn’t help that definitions of diversity rarely include issues related to sexuality and gender identity and expression. For many grantmakers, these concepts remain elusive and uncomfortable; too often they’re deemed peripheral to the conversation at hand and effectively dismissed from even the most basic introspection. For example, we’ve heard many foundation leaders reason that tracking internal data on LGBTQ people violates their privacy, which ignores the vast number of LGBTQ professionals who live and work openly, or existing data collection methods that can offer confidentiality, if desired. Diversity in grantmaking should help bring these critical concerns out of the philanthropic closet. It should debunk the myths that rationalize our realities out of the conversation.

And is it too soon to ask whether the diversity and inclusion approach—in its one-size-fits-all appeal—inherently obscures these pressing concerns? Because if “diversity” is left to individual interpretation and voluntary action—then constricted to questions of demography or multi-voiced discourse—will it overlook the historical reasons many of us remain products of our country’s fiery past? Will it help put out, or will it passively stoke, discrimination’s blazing fire?

We often think of South Asians in the United States as newly wealthy, super-educated, and professional. While this is certainly the case for many South Asian Americans (and thus the focus of many of South Asian Philanthropy Project’s (SAPP’s) own efforts to stimulate philanthropy), there are also pockets of need within the South Asian American community beyond what we normally think about the population. Our community faces issues of poverty, class, immigration status, language access, and gender inequality.

For a grantmaker then, diversity in grantmaking means—most obviously—increasing the flow of grants to beneficiaries in need within the South Asian American community. For this to happen, though, program officers themselves need to be more diverse and connected to the community—intimately understanding its dynamics in relation to the overall health of the larger population. For example, the South Asian community faces some special needs for funding and services, such as immigration counseling, legal aid, certain types of health care and education (such as heart disease and diabetes), domestic violence care, or small business start up and education. On the flip side, diverse grantmaking would leverage special talents in diverse communities—in our case, perhaps our strengths in the health care and computer technology fields, our strong connections abroad, or our commitment to education more generally.

But these are the obvious answers, right? Reframing the question a bit helps to see a bigger issue that I’ve mentioned before when blogging about the Greenlining Institute controversy: Rather than thinking about diversity in grantmaking only on the grantmaker side, what about thinking about diversity on the grantseeker side too? There are many agencies that have a long history of successful foundation fundraising that need to examine their own practices when it comes to diversity—here I’m thinking of very established community organizations that are large grant recipients, such as museums, orchestras, and private schools. This may mean diversifying their boards and staffs, but also (more importantly in my opinion), diversifying their outreach to beneficiaries.

Grantmakers can play an important role in promoting diversity by advocating for it as a stakeholder with grantees. Grantmakers can ask applicants questions such as:

• Who benefits from your programs and services?
• What is the breakdown of your beneficiaries by race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.?
• What steps are you taking to reach out to diverse communities in your programming and access to your services (such as language, board representation, location of activities, etc.)?

Finally—a last point. Our work at SAPP so far has shown that while there are tons of organizations serving the needs of South Asians abroad, there are not too many focused on the population here in North America. Of those that are, most are focused on discrete and small-scale approaches—so small-scale that grantmakers may not find them attractive to fund. There are not that many larger-scale organizations providing multi-layered services to South Asians nationally or even regionally (South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) being the main exception that I can think of right now). Diversity in grantmaking may also mean that grantmakers to diverse communities prepare a different set of criteria for evaluation, consider more seed funding grants, and provide education to small nonprofits about scaling up and replicating their services.

Trista Harris
New Voices of Philanthropy
www.tristaharris.org

Philanthropists are pretty comfortable talking about how diversity of staff improves their foundation’s grantmaking. We have sessions at the Council on Foundations conference where we talk about exemplary foundations that went beyond their comfort zone and hired someone with a different racial background, and the foundation presidents will go on and on about how suddenly the foundations had new connections in the community and a fresh perspective as deliberations were being made. Then the audience will start to get into the conversation and regale the rest of the audience with stories about how their foundations took these diversity conversations even farther and starting looking at how many women vs. men were on their boards, or how they made an effort to find a LGBT staff member, or how it is important to have people with disabilities or even different political perspectives on staff to stretch our thinking and improve our collective decision-making. Our differences are what make our work better, and the crowd cheers.

Then I ask the panelists, “Where does diversity in age, not number of years of foundation experience, but diversity of age, fit into this conversation?” The panelists grimace, the moderator moves on to the next question, and the age question gets left on the table again. When I ask this question in smaller settings, the common refrain is “gen x and gen y don’t want to pay their dues” and “you don’t just come in at age 30 and get a foundation job, it is a reward for a long career in nonprofits.” In the diversity conversation it is not ok to say “don’t ask that question, you are going to make the panelists feel too white” but it is definitely ok to say “don’t ask that question, you are going to make the panelists feel too old.”

So how does the presence of multiple generations in a foundation improve grantmaking?

• Different generations have different perspectives and different life experiences. Someone who graduated from high school in 2000 has a different perspective on the education system than someone who graduated from high school in 1965. Foundations that are making education grants would benefit if they had both of those experiences on staff. One could tell you about the pitfalls of re-segregating schools, the other could talk to you about the security realities of a post-Columbine school. Both perspectives are important and add depth to your deliberations.
• A pipeline of leadership in your organization strengthens your foundation and the field. The hardest leadership trait to hire for is a matching value set. Having a multi-generational staff ensures that as more and more of your staff become retirement age, there are staff available that understand the organizational culture and values and have been prepared to assume leadership.
• Different generations have different skill sets. A Baby Boomer program officer who has been with a foundation for many years might better understand some of the historical foundation relationships, a Generation X or Y staff member may have more comfort with technology or a more robust professional network. Both perspectives are important.

Has generational diversity been a topic of conversation at your foundation? What are some of the barriers and opportunities you see as a result of generational shifts?

Diana Campoamor
Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP)
www.hiponline.org/home

Diversity is important because we can’t be effective grantmakers if we leave a portion of the population out. For us at Hispanics in Philanthropy, that means providing grants to underserved Latino communities. Latinos as a group receive less than 2 percent of foundation dollars, so it is our job to bring that number up by providing grants to traditionally underserved Latino communities. Diversity is also important because in this country we value inclusiveness. At HIP, our mission is about being more inclusive—we want Latinos, as well as other minority populations, to be afforded equal opportunities. Increasing grant dollars to our communities and providing avenues for leadership are some of those opportunities.

Diversity is a fundamental part of democracy, and ultimately, democratic values help the bottom line. Democracy helps organizations—like the grassroots organizations we serve and the affinity groups we are a part of—to grow and flourish, and it helps programs become more effective. Often, it is not what happens but how you handle it. Challenges may abound, but in communities where people understand that we’re all human beings, with inalienable rights as well as responsibilities, these challenges become a reason to come together. By coming together, we’re able to find solutions, find our way out of the storm. Democratic thinking brings people together, opens a door instead of building a wall. And as history teaches us, walls are rarely effective. They’re just a bad use of our resources.

In the end, supporting diversity is the right thing to do. We can either find ways to segregate and leave people out, or we can find ways to come together. All evidence shows that groups that come together, ones that focus on inclusion, do better at improving the lives of those in the community or group. In this way, diversity is about inclusiveness and is an indication that in this country, we are walking in the right direction.

Chris Grumm
Women’s Funding Network
www.womensfundingnetwork.org

I grew up on the island of Oahu in Hawai’i as one of seven children. Those early years were critical in the development of my world view and affected how I approach the work I do today in the women’s funding movement.

My hometown was made up of every cultural and ethnic group represented on the Pacific Rim. This pushed me at an early age to an understanding of community that grew out of points of commonality while still accepting, enjoying, and valuing the rich diversity of cultural differences. The unity in shared values and celebration of diversity that I was raised with on Oahu was part of what attracted me to joining the Women’s Funding Network and the women’s funding movement.

For women’s funds, diversity is a crucial factor in grantmaking as well as leadership and philanthropy. Women’s funds define diversity as inclusion of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, geographic region, or class.

Why does diversity matter? As foundations on the frontlines of providing money to expand social justice, women’s funds support activities aimed at making sure everyone gets a seat at the tables of influence. Creating a society where all people can participate requires the ideas, participation, and support of all people.

Women’s funds share a core belief that we should reflect the diverse population of the communities we seek to empower and have strived to increase diversity in staff, donors, and boards. As a result, women’s funds today are more racially and ethnically diverse than the general population, but we still have a ways to go.

Close to 75 percent of women’s funds’ grants are directed to multiracial, religious and ethnic minorities, or recent immigrants, and 80 percent of grants support programs for low-income and marginalized women and their families.

Women’s funds also aim to expand the number of women and men giving to women-led solutions by fostering the development and growth of donor circles in all communities. These donor circles give people from diverse backgrounds a chance to come together with like-minded donors to share experiences and ideas and to pool resources for women-led initiatives that are creating equality and improving communities.

To perpetuate the increase of giving from people of all backgrounds, the Women’s Funding Network created the Women of Color/International Development Incubator, which has equipped 63 women leaders from diverse communities to raise more than $35 million in new investments from previously untapped populations.

So, while women’s funds continue to include diversity as a core tenet of grantmaking, they are rapidly increasing the diversity among donors as well, and in doing so they are completing a cycle that gives all people the ability to build social justice on their terms.

Sharon D. Toomer
Association of Black Foundation Executives
www.abfe.org

In the 21st century, diversity and inclusion are more of a mandate than an option as an operational practice model to adopt. The demographic landscape of America is more diverse now than at any other period. Organizations in the business of providing a public service or improving the conditions of marginalized, disenfranchised communities are especially obligated to internally reflect the landscape of the nation. And philanthropy, because of its unique power and influence in affecting the lives of people, is charged with a special requirement for inclusion and diversity in its infrastructure. If foundations fail to include voices that are not homogenous, then they fail the public they serve.

Workplace diversity can’t be the singular goal
Workplace diversity is often tossed around as a magic bullet when it is the combined practice of inclusion and diversity that is more likely to produce an outcome of grantmaking equity—the equitable distribution of resources to vendors, nonprofits, consultants, and program officers which serve the same communities that foundations serve—that ultimately will benefit all communities. When an organization is inclusive of ethnic, cultural, economic, and social perspectives then it will be well-informed and engaged; hence, its grantmaking decisions will reflect that inclusive point of view.

Diversity coupled with inclusion is the winning strategy. For instance, any foundation can have an aggressive recruitment campaign to hire a certain amount of Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, or Asians. But if those hired are not included in the decision making of the total organization (influence in policy, finance, agenda, and strategy), then the outcome will be nothing more than an increase in numbers of any given group. That is a numbers game practice.

Take the issue of education. School districts that deliver substandard services are common in marginalized neighborhoods. If in their grantmaking decisions, foundations solely consider the voice of individuals who are culturally, ethnically, socially, and even economically removed from the experiences and realities of the constituents in these marginalized school districts they serve, how then are they making the best grantmaking decisions? How then can that decision-making body understand the nuances and the overall impact on communities they really have no connection to other than through data, studies, and speculation? What foundation wouldn’t want the benefit of a world view that includes real experience combined with technical qualifications?

An inclusive perspective and diverse experiences are vital to the philanthropic community because our world is no longer one dimensional, and the public service we provide reaches and includes a broader world and set of circumstances.

Diversity and inclusion are not mutually exclusive nor are they bad words and practices. Organizations that recognized the value of inclusion and diversity in the 20th century and are prepared for America’s new demographic landscape are organizationally ahead.

Joy A. Persall
Native Americans in Philanthropy
www.nativephilanthropy.org

Key values of indigenous communities and Native Americans in Philanthropy include respect, relationships, responsibility, and reciprocity. These guiding values can provide a framework for dialogue to deepen our understanding of the challenges and opportunities for the practice of diversity in philanthropy resulting in positive impact and systemic change. Philanthropy’s intentions are to have impact and social benefit which are inherently inclusive of our environment and sovereign nations. If these key foundational values are not incorporated into our practices we will not experience progress toward our impact goals. Rather than gaining strength derived from weaving the richness of perspectives, cultures, and visions we will continue to experience divisiveness, alienation, and the perpetuation of inequity.

“Context is everything: Stories and discussion of how to strengthen partnerships between the philanthropic community and Native Americans,” by Wilma Mankiller notes that the “key to understanding Native American concerns starts with the idea of building a respectful relationship over time.” Respect—an action deeper than tolerance—and building relationships, are imperative in achieving diversity in philanthropy and to deeply understand and engage with diverse perspectives, cultures, and systems.

Our communities and nation(s) have changed in reaction to and as a result of governmental policies, environmental impacts, and economic access as well as broader social shifts and perspectives. Our history, our culture, and our values-based framework give us a unique lens to contribute to the discussion. We offer the gift of this perspective. These cultural values give us a unique perspective about the negative effects of … discrimination as well as the impacts of supporting, building, and retaining cultural integrity, language, place, self-determined efforts, and strategic partnerships. These values inform our context for understanding diversity and seeking positive solutions.

Recently, Alaska Native nonprofits and environmentally focused foundations came together to build respectful relationships and gain deeper understanding. Relationships were built, trust was developed, and progress toward alignment of our visions was gained. Foundations committed to having an impact in Alaska recognized the critical importance of having the indigenous voices and values at the table in order for their intentions to take root. This was realized in a multi-pronged approach, through Alaska Native representation on foundation boards, Native staff, non-Native allies, and representation of the communities being served all in dialogue and sharing meals together… a beginning to reach the visions we desire for our futures.

Native peoples sharing perspectives, grounded in their values, history, and vision of the future are increasingly engaging in profound, innovative, and impactful philanthropic practices. Diversity in philanthropy can result in learning and real-time and long-term systemic changes, in Native communities and for benefit to all our communities. Each of us has lessons to learn and lessons to share which can result in profound acts of reciprocity.

For Native peoples, the guiding value of reciprocity reminds us that our responsibility to give back is continuous, yielding ongoing impacts that leverage the original act of philanthropy, for maximum benefit and sustainability.

From an indigenous lens, to what end is diversity in grantmaking and philanthropy important? Indigenous people seek to be in relationship with systems of philanthropy so that all may benefit and our communities and nation(s) can thrive. Through acts of diversity in philanthropy we have opportunities to expand our analysis, strengthen relationships, and discover strategies and actions built upon mutual respect and responsibility for each other and the earth.