• Facebook
  • Twitter

Movement Strategy Center

  • Home
  • WHO WE ARE
    • PURPOSE
    • PRACTICE
  • WHAT WE DO
    • MSC APPROACH
    • TRANSITION COMMUNITY & STRATEGY
    • PROGRAM GALLERY
    • INNOVATION CENTER
  • RESOURCES
    • PUBLICATIONS & TOOLS
    • LET’S TALK
  • CONNECT
    • SUBSCRIBE
    • DONATE
    • CONTACT

Tag Archive for: Philanthropy

  • Dana Kawaoka-Chen

Changing Funder Habits to Change the Game

By Dana Kawaoka-Chen   |  December 12, 2014
Reflections | 1 Comment

We need new habits — philanthropic habits, that is. We need new habits that reflect the state of our country as it is now: a first-world nation where young black men are 21 times more likely than their white peers to be killed by police, where one-third of the workforce is comprised of contingent workers, and where our country’s carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to what will likely be the warmest year ever recorded on the planet.

Habits are recurrent, unconscious patterns of behavior that are acquired through frequent repetition. Earlier this year, Staci Haines of Generative Somatics introduced me to the concept of 300/3,000, the idea that it takes a person 300 repetitions of a behavior before that behavior can be a conscious action you choose, then 3,000 repetitions of that behavior before it became an automatic response. (Think of a professional golfer changing her swing, or a baseball pitcher changing the release of a pitch).

While these are very physical examples, I think they apply in a philanthropic context.

What of our current grantmaking habits actually constrain movement? What of these habits are actually based on a dated analysis of the world? What new habits will get us a different outcome? How can grantmakers play a different role with community groups and thereby change the rules of the game?

Jen Sokolove of the Compton Foundation recently wrote on the “What is a Justice Funder?” blog: “Funding only the kind of work with which we’re comfortable is precisely what limits innovation.”

To Compton’s credit, they are very transparently trying to develop new philanthropic habits to “build alignment across real divisions.” Another grantmaker to change their habits very publicly to “increase the net grant” is Unitarian Universalist Veatch program at Shelter Rock who recently did away with asking for the “fake funder budget.”

In my work with the Bay Area Justice Funders Network, I have observed that changes in strategy at philanthropic institutions aren’t always accompanied by a change in the grantmaking practices to carry out the new strategy, or vice versa. The results are challenging for the funder and their grantee partners. And when multiplied across multiple institutions, what is the cumulative effect on our ability to transform systems at the scale we need? What philanthropic habits get us closer to transformation?

Recently, I had the opportunity to reflect on habits from a very unique perspective. The Movement Strategy Center hosted a two-day Transitions Lab where two dozen social justice leaders and funders gathered and, among other things, found ourselves passing a ball around in a circle. What this playful exercise surfaced for me was how rote our individual and group behavior can be unless we are intentionally trying to be different. It didn’t matter whether the prompt was for us to share the ball “abundantly” or “competitively,” we all have life experiences to draw from that allowed us to play together when bound by these rules. But this exercise made me think about how we play when we know that the current rules aren’t the ones we want to operate under anymore? Then what? How do we develop a new schema to work from?

I am clear that we in philanthropy need new habits to support new ways of intersectional organizing, as well as new habits to radically transform the very systems that allow and perpetuate state violence without accountability. We need new habits because the very definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, yet expect different results.

While I may not yet have the answers to these questions, our group exercise of throwing the ball reinforced my belief that we need to intentionally choose what habits are moving us closer to what we want and what new habits we need to develop.

So, let’s talk . . . what habits need to go?

What new habits are folks trying on?

Who is interested in practicing some new ones together?


Dana Kawaoka-Chen is the Network Director for the Bay Area Justice Funders Network. She can be reached at dana@justicefunders.org, and on Twitter: @justicefunders

  • Photo: Justin Baeder

Seven Ways Funders Can Support Racial Justice

By Julie Quiroz   |  June 27, 2014
Reflections | 0 Comments

A few months ago I spoke to Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society, who described “disturbing trends in some national foundations; a pulling away from race where they seem to be adopting the notion of post-racial America.”

“What,” asked Patterson, “is going on?”

How far have we come from 1993 when — a year after the LA uprising — “diversity and inclusion” were considered cutting edge ideas in philanthropy?

That’s what I wrote about in a recent article that appeared in Moving Forward on Racial Justice Philanthropy, a new report from the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity.

“Racial justice has been strengthened when individuals in foundations took a chance on movement building,” answered Gihan Perera, executive director of Florida New Majority (FNM) and former executive director of Miami Workers Center. “Right now people are impressed with FNM as a multi-issue, multi-ethnic statewide power that wins campaigns,” he continues. “But none of this would be happening without the decades of experience we spent building racial justice unity on the ground.”

“While Black/Brown unity is now accepted as an important approach in organizing,” says Perera, “10 or 15 years ago we couldn’t talk to funders about it. We couldn’t talk to funders about the real work – the political education, the leadership development, the relationship building – that multiracial unity involves.”

Just this past week Jee Kim of the Ford Foundation took the bold step of publicly putting out a movement building theory of change – and asking everyone what they thought of it. Kim is asking philanthropy to recognize the power of social movements, to honestly and thoughtfully examine how and why they succeed or fail, and to strategically and proactively engage in supporting them. That feels to me like momentum other funders can build upon.

What else can funders do?

Drawing on conversations with other racial justice organizers and activists, here’s how I summarized steps that funders can and should take.

1 Fund Organizing as Core to Racial Justice

I can’t believe we still need to say this but we do: To effectively support racial justice, foundations must prioritize the day-to-day work of community organizing as part of a larger theory of change. But that’s far from a no-brainer in the funding world.

“There’s a lack of an effective change model,” says Makani Themba, executive director of The Praxis Project. “Funders lack a clear understanding of where base-building fits in.” Scot Nakagawa of ChangeLab, agrees. “Funders are concentrating on ‘funding to scale,’ on larger organizations and less on smaller groups,” he says. “But policy is the end of the discussion and not the beginning. The beginning is the work of smaller community-based groups who deal with the most directly impacted.” Maria Poblet, director of Causa Justa/Just Cause, “No one wants to fund the infrastructure of organizing. That’s one of the core ways that racial inequity plays out in the world.”

The recent launch of the collaborative LGBTQ Racial Justice Fund is a powerful step in this direction. This effort – which seeks to engage LGBTQ funders and other progressive funders — is central for LGBTQ communities and for building a stronger progressive movement.

2 Make A Long Term Commitment

Again, hard to believe it needs to be said, but does it ever. According to Kalpana Krishnamurthy, policy director at Forward Together, “A variety of different sectors within philanthropy have tried to move more resources to organizations of color, in particular to reproductive justice. But the funding pattern is short. How do you get to structural change if you are only getting a few years of funding?”

3 Stop Perpetuating Structural Racism

The way foundations design and conduct grant-making often reinforces racial inequities, and favors organizations that have benefited from White privilege through a history of White leadership. My co-worker Taj James breaks it down: “As a country, the less White we get, the more decision-makers distrust democracy. This plays out in philanthropy where we can now hear conversations like ‘Is democracy good or bad in Detroit?’ Like the country as a whole, philanthropy is turning away from democracy and toward a ‘technocratic’ approach that reflects and reproduces structural racism.”

4 Tell True Stories of Racial Justice

It’s important to do good work, but also to build a “bigger we” of people who understand the work in the context of the change model, feel connected to it, and speak and stand up for it. “We need to tell our stories of the strengths of the racial justice movement,” says Judith Browne Dianis, director of the national multiracial civil right organization Advancement Project. “We are sometimes too busy doing the work to tell the story.” Themba makes a similar point. “The dominant theme is that explicit work on racial justice is hard to do and can be divisive. But we are winning, talking about race and racial justice,” she says.

“The framing and story about the work shapes whether there are resources or not,” concludes Taj. “Valuable and successful work can be going on but not getting resources. The same work can have a new story and frame, and the resources come back.”

5 Make the Connection Between Racial Justice and Everything Else

“Success is happening where an intersectional approach is being supported alongside a racial justice movement,” says Cathi Tactaquin, executive director of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Themba notes there has been progress on this front. “A small but growing group of funders are working to integrate support for explicit racial justice work into their issue-based portfolios,” says Themba, who nonetheless cautions that “We need a ‘both/and’ approach that doesn’t marginalize racial justice” such as the Edward W. Hazen Foundation’s “both/and” work on education justice.

Monami Maulik of Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM) described a shift away from racial justice. “Except for growing race/class framing in policing and youth criminalization funding, I’m hearing the same message now that I heard in the post 9/11 era: that we should not be about race. It pretty explicitly happened in immigration funding.”

6 Support Multi-Racial Connections

Perera gives credit to the handful of funders who saw the value in naming the tensions and potential between Black and Latino communities, invested resources in this work, and provided thoughtful leadership that legitimized multiracial organizing to other funders.

Perera observes that small foundations like the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock and medium-sized foundations like the Public Welfare Foundation “seeded cutting edge work and invested appropriately for their institutions.” He also believes large foundations such as Ford made a difference by supporting organizing infrastructure and signaling the value of the work to other foundations. But Perera believes the key lesson for funders – that creating space for multiracial constituencies (between and within strong organizations) to come together toward a common agenda – has gone largely unlearned. “The breakthrough in understanding has not resulted in real shifts in funding,” asserts Perera.

7 Organize racial justice leaders in philanthropy.

“A core cadre has emerged of individual program officers and donors committed to racial justice,” observes Taj. “They have the potential to have broader influence on the field of philanthropy overall.” Malkia Cyril, director of the Center for Media Justice, comments on the importance of alignment among organizers and advocates in shaping philanthropy. “We need more peer-to-peer conversations on how money moves; what outcomes we want.”

Work such as that of the Bay Area Justice Funders Network and their Harmony Institute may hold the seeds of a philanthropic shift toward more honest conversation (Check out BAJF’s powerful recent piece from Cathy Lerza). This candid dialogue can lead philanthropy away from an obsession with what Taj James calls things “small enough to measure but not big enough to matter” and toward a commitment to solutions that remake systems that truly work for all.

At a time when race continues to shape every aspect of our lives — from access to healthy food, treatment within schools, safety from violence, to our very recognition as human beings — all of us, including philanthropy, have a responsibility to step boldly forward.

—

Feature photo: Justin Baeder

Let’s Talk

  • Interviews
  • News
  • Profiles
  • Recent blogs
  • Reflections
  • Year in Review

Topics

Alliance Building Alliance Tools Art & Culture Big Leap Series Climate Justice Economic Justice Education Justice Electoral Food Justice Gender Justice Series Healing Justice Immigrant Rights & Migration Media Justice Movement Building MSC Transitions Lab Next Economy Organizing Philanthropy Racial Justice Reproductive Justice Resources Strategy Transformative Movement Building Youth Organizing

Movement Strategy Center

MOVEMENT
STRATEGY
CENTER

436 14TH STREET
5TH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94612
P (510) 444-0640
F (510) 680-3782

All content © 2013 - 2021 by Movement Strategy Center Credits