Philanthropy, Social Justice and Shifting Power: Updates on a Special Research Initiative
It started out as a personal quandary about how the philanthropic sector delineates and defines “justice” grantmaking, what is “equity” grantmaking, and what is grantmaking that isn’t either of those things. That quest for understanding has grown into a long-term research and framework-development initiative that I am leading.
The first product of this research and frame-work development initiative is the report titled “Philanthropy, Social Justice and Shifting Power,” a special report published within the Inside Philanthropy State of American Philanthropy series, for which I have been the Editorial Director for the past several years.
The IP blog post providing an overview of the findings is here and excerpted/adapted below.
The report is based on extensive reading of existing thought leadership on this topic and 22 original interviews with experts ranging across social justice funders, authors of widely discussed books on philanthropy, leaders of philanthropy serving organizations (PSOs) and media observers critical of the sector.
A Proposal to the Philanthropic Sector: A Justice-Regression Grantmaking Continuum
The report proposes a “justice-regression grantmaking continuum” that could be used to analyze giving portfolios and advance public analysis of how much funding goes to what kind of work. The report provides a brief history of how various organizations and leaders have developed working definitions of “justice” and “equity” grantmaking (focusing especially on the central roles of PSOs and Candid), and then goes on to outline other types of grantmaking that experts commonly discuss. The continuum of grantmaking types proposed in the report are:
Justice grantmaking
Equity grantmaking
Pro omnibus (for all) grantmaking
Backstopping government grantmaking
Status quo grantmaking
Self-serving grantmaking
Regressive grantmaking
The experts I interviewed for this research did not necessarily give those particular names to various grantmaking and giving practices, but we have named them in these ways in an effort to crystalize our thinking and succinctly describe somewhat amorphous motivations and activities.
One of the most distinct conclusions of the research is that there is growing consensus on basic definitions of justice and equity, which aligns very closely with those laid out by the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity (PRE): “Racial equity focuses on the prevention of harm and the redistribution of benefits within existing systems [emphasis added]. Racial justice focuses on power-building and transformative goals, explicitly seeking to generate enough power among disenfranchised people to change the fundamental rules of society.” While PRE’s work focuses on race, the working parameters of justice and equity are similar to language used by people focused on gender, immigration status, LGBTQ+ identities, etc.
Eight Power-Shifting Practices
One of the most important conclusions of this research is that concepts of “justice” in grantmaking are inextricable from analysis of power dynamics in philanthropy – how power is held, shared or given over by those who control the billions. The report has a chapter that delves into eight practices that seem to be most commonly associated with “shifting power.” Such hot-button topics as “trust-based philanthropy,” participatory grantmaking and movement-led collaborative funds are discussed in depth, as well as perennial concerns such as board composition, transparency and donor directives.
There is a lot of important thinking from experts on these topics, but unlike definitions of grantmaking types, there doesn’t seem to be a growing consensus on which practices do the most to genuinely shift power to people working in communities. Still, the pros, cons and complicating factors associated with those practices are discussed at length.
Next Stage: Developing Practical Assessment Tools Using These Frameworks
The final section of “Philanthropy, Social Justice and Shifting Power” states our intention to grow public discussion of the frameworks proposed in the report and to pursue new thinking from the field.
As I note in the report, billionaires, corporations and their foundations make a lot of implicit and explicit claims about their commitment to equity and real social change. In the past few years in particular, philanthropists have often said they are directing significantly more resources to justice and equity and engaging in authentic efforts to shift power to communities. But are they really?
The final section of the report outlines how we intend, in the next stage of this inquiry, to “test drive” an assessment or set of measurement tools by using these frameworks to examine a few funders. This may take the form of a “report card,” an in-depth profile or something in between. Our belief is that the proposed frameworks have value, require a great deal more input from the field, and have the potential to be utilized in practical assessment tools. The report ends with a call for public input as we head into the next stage of research.
Inside Philanthropy has covered issues of justice, equity and power in philanthropy from its earliest days. Along with the sector itself, we have struggled to identify and apply universally accepted definitions of what terms like justice and equity in grantmaking really mean. We hope this research report prompts a wider discussion and moves the sector toward greater common understanding.
I am assembling a list of interview subjects for the next stage. If you have thoughts you’d like to share on this research, please contact me at michael@hamillremaley.com