Foundation Giving and Communities of Color

AppliedResearchCenter

Foundation Giving and Communities of Color

Short Changed

By Will Pittz and Rinku SenApplied Research Center

A P P L I E D R E S E A R C H C E NTE R www . a r c . o r g 1

Race and race relations have re-emerged as flashpoints in publicpolicy debates in recent years. Vot-

er disenfranchisement in the South, at-tacks on affirmative action, and racialprofiling under national security policieshave brought race issues to center stage.Even in spheres where race is not a pri-mary focus, it often lies not far beneaththe surface. Whether connected to the tar-geting of youth of color in the war ondrugs, hardships borne by low-incomefamilies after welfare reform, or the ero-sion of public education, race is one of themost critical issues of our time.

Despite the centrality of race in each ofthese policy issues, political commenta-tors like Dinesh D’Souza have proclaimedthe “end of racism,” and many people be-lieve that civil rights progress, defined bymajor court decisions and significant leg-islation over the past 35 years, has maderacial discrimination a thing of the past.Neoconservative thought, well-supportedby a network of foundations and thinktanks and widely disseminated, has em-phasized de jure discrimination, individ-ual rights, and “colorblind” remedies.Race-conscious policies and practicessuch as affirmative action, minority set-asides, and redistricting are increasinglycritiqued, contested, and dismantled.Ward Connerly’s “Racial Privacy” ballotinitiative in California that would havebanned government agencies from col-lecting racial data exemplifies the politi-cal currency of the everyday message thatsays, “It’s time to get beyond race.” Raceconsciousness is now suspiciously viewedas inherently racist and impermissible ina good, just, and supposedly colorblind society.

Are we beyond race? Civil rights strugglesin key institutional arenas such as hous-ing, education, and healthcare have led todramatic gains in the advancement of le-gal equality over the past four decades.But persistent gaps in hiring, promotion,educational achievement, median familyincome, prison sentencing patterns, andmortality rates show that substantiveracial inequalities remain and in manycases have deepened. The pervasive back-lash against immigrants and affirmativeaction threatens to resegregate social lifeand exacerbate inequalities. Even as neo-conservative rhetoric dismisses the sig-nificance of race, empirical studiesdocument contemporary patterns ofracial inequality and discrimination.

Race still matters, now more than ever.This report discusses ways foundationsconcerned with social justice have sup-ported efforts. An assessment of the num-bers presents an unpromising picture:although people of color make up nearlyone-third of the general U.S. population,grants explicitly targeted to benefit themconstituted only seven percent of founda-tion giving in 2001. As the challenges fac-ing organizations that promote justiceand equity for immigrants and estab-lished communities of color mount, fund-ing streams for many such organizationshave been reduced to a trickle in recentyears. These realities raise several keyquestions: What does the available data

The pervasive backlash against immigrants and affirmative actionthreatens to resegregate social life andexacerbate inequalities.

introduction

2 S H O RT C H A N G E D

on grants to communities of color and tojustice-based efforts reveal about overallfunding trends? What factors hinderfunding for racial justice within the foun-dation community, and which foundationefforts to support racial justice have beenparticularly effective? Given the fact thatthere is not a clear consensus amongfoundation leaders about the definitionof racial justice, what can we say aboutthe future of racial justice funding overall?

To explore these questions, ARC employedthe following research methods:

• A literature review of key articles andpublications on funding in communi-ties of color, social change funding,and racial justice initiatives.

• Data analysis of funding trends from1994 to 2001 as reported by the Foun-dation Center, as well as analysis of da-ta from the Council on Foundations,the Independent Sector, and the JointAffinity Groups.

• Interviews with more than 40 key ac-tors within the philanthropic commu-nity and individuals working in thearea of racial justice advocacy.

• Summaries of case studies and keyfindings of ongoing research in thefield of race and social change.

R E P O R T S T R U C T U R E

This report analyzes the results of this re-search in three sections. The first sectionanalyzes the available data on giving tocommunities of color and to civil rightsand social action organizations. It in-cludes an assessment of the impact ofthese giving trends on particular organi-zations that conduct racial justice work.The second section focuses on how varieddefinitions of racial justice have pro-duced different funding emphases, exam-ines foundation initiatives that explicitlyaddress race and racial justice, and dis-cusses the impact of foundation staff di-versity on racial justice funding. Theconcluding section of the report sums upkey observations and findings and makesrecommendations to funders and donorsinterested in supporting efforts to pro-mote racial equity.


“Data from the Foundation Center suggest

that groups dedicated to minority causes

reap a considerably lower percentage of

[funding from] foundations that may

serve a variety of populations.”

M I C H A E L A N F T A N D D E B R A E . B L U M

Ch ron i c l e o f P h i l a n t h ro p y Spec i a l R epo r t 2 0 0 2

Between 1985 and 2002, the number offoundations operating in the UnitedStates more than doubled—from 25,000 to60,000—and their total assets increasedfrom $100 billion to $600 billion. (Harris2003) Even after adjusting for inflation,grant dollars have more than doubled overthe past decade and have more thanquadrupled since 1975. Despite signifi-cant declines in foundation assets in 2001and 2002, foundation giving peaked at$30.5 billion in 2001 and remained steadyin 2002. (Foundation Yearbook 2003)While figures for 2003 are not yet avail-able, a drastic decline in giving was notpredicted for the year; a Foundation Cen-

ter survey of 747 foundations found themajority expected to either increasefunding or maintain their current fund-ing levels in 2003. (Foundation Yearbook2003) What have these trends meant forU.S.-born populations of color, immi-grants and refugees, and social change ef-forts designed to advocate for policiesand programs that benefit these communities?

S U P P O R T F O R P E O P L E O F C O LO R ,

I M M I G R A N T S , A N D R E F U G E E S

The most comprehensive grant giving da-ta, collected by the Foundation Center,presents some challenges for estimatinggiving to communities of color or toracial justice work. The Foundation Cen-ter notes in its reports that tracking giv-ing to communities of color presents“special difficulties due to the wording ofgrant descriptions, and also to the Cen-ter’s effort to avoid double counting grantdollars.” Giving to communities of color iscalculated by “groups that could be identi-fied as serving specific populations orgrants whose descriptions specified abenefit for a specific population.” Be-cause these categories are not discrete, itis possible to overcount (grants benefit-ing multiple populations could be count-ed more than once) or to undercount (agrant to a homeless shelter in a predomi-nantly African American community thatdoes not explicitly state African Ameri-cans as a target population for its serviceswould not be counted as funding to peopleof color). At the same time, racial justicefunding is not an explicit category in theFoundation Center’s database. To deter-mine funding for racial justice work, it is

INCREASE 38%

NO CHANGE 20%

DECREASE 42%

W I L L F O U N D AT I O N G I V I N G D E C R E A S E I N 2 0 0 3 ?

Source: 747 foundation surveys by the Foundation Center,Foundation Yearbook 2003

racial justice funding by the numbers


necessary to extrapolate from data in thebroader category of Social Action and Civ-il Rights.

Despite these limitations, analysis ofFoundation Center data on funding tocommunities of color and to civil rightsand social action organizations does re-veal important longitudinal givingtrends. The data reveals that while foun-dation giving to communities of color hasincreased in recent years, it has not keptpace with overall increases in philan-thropic support. From 1994 to 2001,

grants increased by 63 percent (to a totalof 16.8 billion). During the same time pe-riod, grants designated to communitiesof color increased by 55 percent (to ap-proximately 1.2 billion). Support for racialand ethnic communities in general to-taled $627 million in 2001; the remaining$553 million was targeted towards specif-ic racial and ethnic groups.

As a proportion of total foundation giv-ing, grants to communities of color fellfrom a peak of nearly ten percent of allgrants in 1998 to seven percent in 2001,

G I V I N G TO C O M M U N I T I E S O F C O LO R BY R E G I O N

The gap between foundation assets and giving across regions has closed. While foundationsin the Northeast continue to have the largest share of assets (33.9 percent), other regionshave made significant gains. Since 1975, total assets of Western foundations have grown ten

times as fast as Northeastern foundations, while the South has had the largest gain in the numberof foundations. In 2001, the share of total giving among the Midwest (23.1 percent), the South (22percent), and the West (21.1 percent) was nearly the same. However, there are still regional differ-ences in funding to people of color.

Foundations in the Northeast and West are more likely to target support towards communities ofcolor, including immigrants and refugees. In 2001, nearly half of $115.6 billion in support to immi-grant communities was provided by foundations in the Northeast, and more than 25 percent of im-migrant support came from foundationsin the West. In 2001, only five percent ofSouthern foundations assisted communi-ties of color directly, compared to 7.2 to7.4 percent in the Northeast, Midwest,and West.

In all regions, nonwhite racial and ethnicpopulations received a disproportionate-ly smaller share of foundation supportthan their demographic representation.For example, people of color make up41.7 percent of the population in theWest, yet only 7.4 percent of foundationgiving in the West is designated explicit-ly to benefit people of color.

Source: Foundation Center, “Foundation GivingTrends,” and “Foundation Yearbook: Facts andFigures on Private and Community Foundations,”2003.

WEST $321 million

(27.9%)

NORTHEAST $437 million

(37.9%)

SOUTH $144 million

(12.5%)

MIDWEST $250 million

(21.7%)

R E G I O N A L G I V I N G TO C O M M U N I T I E S O F C O LO R I N 2 0 0 1


the lowest point in over a decade. This rep-resents a potential loss of $486 millionannually in support to communities ofcolor. This decline is primarily due to de-creases in the average grant size, ratherthan the total number of grants given.Over the past decade, the share of grantsgiven to communities of color has fluctu-ated between 9.1 and 9.8 percent. But be-tween 1998 and 2001, the average value ofgrants designated for populations of col-or decreased by 19 percent to $95,227.

• Relative to other grants, funding des-ignated for African American com-munities has fallen to its lowest levelin the past decade. In 2000 and 2001,funding explicitly for African Ameri-can communities fell to 1.4 percent oftotal foundation giving, after rangingfrom 2.0 to 3.8 percent of giving be-tween 1994 and 1999. (Foundation Giv-

ing Trends 2003) In 2001, grants toAfrican American communities to-taled $237 million, compared to a highof $367 million in 1998. This is largelyattributable to a significant decreasein the size of the average grant togroups that support African Ameri-cans, which decreased from $104,500in 1994 to $88,758 in 2001.

• Asian American/Pacific Islandercommunities received between .3 and.5 percent of total grant dollars be-tween 1994 and 2001. In 2001, AAPIcommunities received $63.6 million inlarge grant support. The average grantgrew 125 percent to $80,100 in thatsame period.

• Latino-focused organizations re-ceived an average of 1.48 percent oflarge foundation grants between1994 and 2001. Funding to Latinocommunities rose from $140 million in2000 to $168 million in 2001, whichwas 2.1 percent of all large grants. Thisincrease reflects a few large grants,

such as the Pew Charitable Trust’s $5.9million research grant to the Universi-ty of Southern California and $2.5 mil-lion from the Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation to the Latino Council onAlcohol and Tobacco.

• In 2000 and 2001, giving to NativeAmericans/American Indians ac-counted for .5 percent of total founda-tion giving, equaling its lowest levelin the past decade. Between 1994 and1999, giving to Native American/American Indian communities rangedbetween .5 and .9 percent of total giv-ing. In 2001, large foundation grantsto Native American/American Indianstotaled $84 million.

• Support for immigrants and refugeestotaled $121 million in 2001, repre-senting only 0.7 percent of all largegrant dollars. Since 1994, giving toimmigrants and refugees has rangedfrom 0.6 to 1 percent of large founda-tion grants. This is a particularly smallproportion considering the fact thatforeign-born U.S. residents total morethan 11 percent of the population, upfrom 8 percent a decade earlier. Sup-port for migrant workers, which is un-der a separate Foundation Centercategory, reached a mere $7.6 millionin 2001.

R A C I A L J U S T I C E F U N D I N G

“I’m one of those ‘the glass is half full’

kinds of people. But, when it’s about racial

justice issues you really can’t paint a pret-

ty picture. You have to tackle it head on

and call it what it is.”

D A R A N E E P E T S O DGran tmake r s C once r n ed w i t h

Imm i g ra n t s a nd R e f u g e es

While grantmaking to communities ofcolor does not equate to racial justice


199815 recipients of 50




Mexican American Legal Defenseand Education Fund (31 grants, $5.4 million)

National Immigrant Legal SupportCenter (10 grants, $4.6 million)

National Council of La Raza (31 grants, $18.3 million)

National Council of La Raza (34 grants, $2.8 million)

National Council of La Raza(23 grants, $3.4 million)

National Council of La Raza(27 grants, $3.6 million)


Native American Rights Fund (5 grants, $1.8 million)

Harvard Civil Rights Project (8 grants, $3.2 million)


NAACP Legal Defense and Educa-tion Fund (10 grants, $7.3 million)

National Council of Negro Women (15 grants, $1.7 million)

Catholic Legal Immigration Net-work (5 grants, $2.4 million)

Catholic Legal Immigration Net-work (4 grants, $1.5 million)

National Immigration Legal Support Center (12 grants, $3.5 million)

Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California (15 grants, $1.5 million)

National Immigrant Legal SupportCenter (5 grants, $2.2 million)

Immigrant and Refugee Services of America (4 grants, $1.3 million)

National Association of LatinoElected and Appointed OfficialsEducation Fund (11 grants, $1.8million)


New York Immigration Coalition (12 grants, $2.2 million)

National Congress of American In-dians (2 grants, $1.3 million)

National Immigration Forum (6 grants, $1.7 million)

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rightsunder Law (10 grants, $1.4 million)

NAACP Legal Defense and Educa-tion Fund (10 grants, $1.8 million)

Black Filmmaker Foundation (1 grant, $1.3 million)

Native American Rights Fund (5 grants, $1.5 million)

NAACP Special Contribution Fund(15 grants, $1.1 million)


Harvard Civil Rights Project (2 grants, $1.1 million)


Immigrant Legal Resource Center (6 grants, $1 million)

Native American Rights Fund(4 grants, $1.4 million)

Asian Pacific American Legal Cen-ter of Southern California (14 grants, $1 million)

National Asian Pacific AmericanLegal Consortium (12 grants, $1.4 million)

Immigrant and Refugee Servicesof America (4 grants, $1.2 million)

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (5 grants, $.9 million)

New York Immigration Coalition (17 grants, $1.3 million)

National Association of LatinoElected and Appointed OfficialsEducation Fund (6 grants, $1.2 million)

Center for Third World Organizing(12 grants, $.8 million)

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (5 grants, $1.1 million)

Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (6 grants, $.8 million)

National Council of Negro Women(11 grants, $1.1 million)

Immigrant Legal Resource Center (7 grants, $1 million)

NAACP Special Contribution Fund(12 grants, $.9 million)

Total: $30 million Total: $20.9 million Total: $48.2 million Total: $12.7 million

R A C I A L J U S T I C E : A D E C L I N I N G P R I O R I T Y ?

Racial Justice Organizations Within the Top 50 Recipients of Civil Rights and Social Action Funding, 1998-2001 (Foundation Giving Trends 2003)


funding, the Foundation Center doestrack a number of categories that inter-sect with racial justice efforts, includingfunding to social action, civil rights, andequal rights organizations. An assess-ment of these data paints a distressingpicture:

• Civil rights and social action fundingremains a low priority for founda-tions. In inflation-adjusted dollars,funding for civil rights and social ac-tion increased from $137,493 millionin 1998 to $184,980 million in 2001.Yet the proportion of foundation sup-port for civil rights and social actionfell to 1.1 percent of all foundation giv-ing in 2001, from 1.4 percent in 1998.Compared to civil rights and social ac-tion, foundations are nearly 3.5 timesas likely to fund community improve-ment/development, three times as like-ly to support philanthropy andvolunteerism, and 2.5 times as likelyto support public affairs. (Foundation

Giving Trends 2003)

• Within funding for civil rights andsocial action, racial justice organiza-tions are a declining priority. The top50 recipients of foundation grants forcivil rights and social action receive 77percent of all grants in this category.The chart lists organizations withinthis top 50 that focus on race and/orimmigrant rights.

As the chart on the next page illustrates,the number of groups primarily focusedon “minority” and “immigrant” communi-ties within the top 50 Civil Rights and So-cial Action recipients fell from 15 in 1998to eight in 2001. The total dollars awardedto these recipients seemed to fall as well,reaching a low of only $12.7 million in2001. The exception is the year 2000;however, the majority of the $48.2 millionawarded that year went to just three or-ganizations—the National Council of La

Raza, MALDEF, and the NAACP Legal De-fense and Education Fund—who alone ac-counted for $35.5 million in grants.

I M PA C T O N R A C I A L J U S T I C E

E F F O R T S

Many racial justice organizations haveexperienced a significant loss in founda-tion support in recent years. Such losseshave caused several of these organiza-tions to close their doors, including theNorthwest Coalition Against MaliciousHarassment, the Washington Alliance forImmigrant and Refugee Justice, and theNorthern California Immigrant RightsCoalition. Immigrant rights groups inMassachusetts and Florida report beingendangered by cuts in private and govern-ment funds. (Anft 2003)

In addition, local racial justice organiza-tions across the nation are struggling. InProvidence, Rhode Island, Direct Actionfor Rights and Equality (DARE) DirectorSara Mersha notes that “A number of fun-ders have discontinued our support, whileothers have done across-the-board cuts.”DARE, which uses a racial justice frame-work in organizing low-income familiesof color, has seen its budget cut nearly inhalf—to $280,000—over the past fewyears, and they have been unable to re-place staff when workers transition out ofthe organization. “We have gone from astaff of eight to five, and it has really lim-ited our capacity. Members are steppingin to help, but it takes staff time to coor-dinate that. I am not only the director, Ihave become an organizer for one of our

Many racial justice organizations haveexperienced a significant loss in foun-dation support. Such losses havecaused several of these organizationsto close their doors.


campaigns. This means less time to workwith the board or to do fundraising.”

The impact has been less severe at Makethe Road by Walking (MRBW), a Latinoand African American-led community or-ganization in Bushwick, Brooklyn thathas launched successful initiativesagainst civil rights violations and lan-guage discrimination at public and socialservice organization offices. Yet, the de-crease in funding has still been damagingto the organization’s work. “We cut backon our budget and had to make our staffcontribute to healthcare costs, but we stillhave a $120,000 shortfall this year,” re-ports MRBW co-director Andrew Fried-

man. “It’s really frustrating, because weare winning concrete victories that affectthe lives of literally hundreds of thou-sands of immigrants in New York City,and now we have been unable to securethe funding to expand our efforts.”

T H E E F F E C T S O F S E P T. 1 1

“Since Sept. 11, our community has be-

come a target for violence and for the in-

vestigation about terrorism. Because of

this, many Arab Americans are not attend-

ing events. Some are cancelling their sub-

scriptions to Arab magazines and

newspapers, and their memberships to

Arab organizations. “

M I C H A E L S H E H A D E H Wes t e r n R eg i o n a l D i re c t o r o f t h e A ra b -Ame r i c a n An t i - D i s c r im i n a t i o n C omm i t t e e , L o s A nge l e s C A

Sept. 11 dramatically increased the needsof organizations that work with commu-nities of color, while having a mixed ef-fect on their ability to attract foundationdollars. “Not only has the federal govern-ment crackdown on men from Arab or pre-dominantly Muslim countries (such asSomalia)…caused demand for aid [in theU.S.] to soar,” writes Michael Anft in The

Chronicle of Philanthropy, but “a surge inviolence and discrimination against im-migrants from those counties has alsoprompted an expansion of services bygroups that serve the three million Arabimmigrants in the United States. Despitethe crush of clients, the dozen or moregroups that have aided the immigrantssince Sept. 11 say they are now in a betterposition to help largely because of [the]increased interest [of] foundations.”

While a number of funders, such as theFord and Rockefeller foundations, havesupported “groups that provide support toand defend the legal rights of Arab andMuslim immigrants,” Anft also points tothe fact that a number of U.S. charitiesthat send money abroad to Muslim coun-tries are being subjected to increasedscrutiny and government interventions.This has had a chilling effect on individ-ual donations, particularly on giving byArabs and Muslims to Arab and Muslimorganizations.

Arab and Muslim communities are notthe only populations affected by post-Sept. 11 giving patterns. In a 2002 studyof the impact of Sept. 11 among organiza-tions serving African American and Lati-no populations, 85 percent of surveyrespondents reported that funding wasthe most important area of impact. (Der-ryk and Abzug 2002) A survey of fundersin Washington D.C. found that 77 percentof grantees had experienced an increasein demand for services and that 80 per-cent of grantees had trouble raising funds

“We are winning concrete victories that affect the lives of hundreds of thou-sands of immigrants in New York City,and now we have been unable to se-cure the funding to expand our efforts.”


in the six months after September 2001.(Washington Regional Association ofGrantmakers 2002)

In addition, immigrant organizationshave received little support, despite thefact that immigrants have become thetarget of hate crimes and increased gov-ernment intrusions, detentions, and de-portations. In 2003, the Council onFoundations released an analysis of dona-tions for Sept. 11 relief and recovery ef-forts for the first anniversary year. Of the$1.7 billion distributed, only two percent($34 million) went to low-income and im-migrant communities.

C I V I L R I G H T S A N D L I T I G AT I O N

Over the past several decades, litigationhas been a primary weapon in the fightfor civil rights. Organizations such as theNational Association for the Advance-ment of Colored People (NAACP) Legal De-fense Fund, the Mexican American LegalDefense and Education Fund (MALDEF),the Asian American Legal Defense andEducation Fund (AALDEF), National Im-migration Law Center, American Civil Lib-erties Union, and others have all usedlitigation to protect and advance the legalrights of people of color and immigrants.Such organizations have also been thebiggest recipients of foundation supportfor civil rights and social action over theyears. However, legal strategies that haveso successfully promoted legal equalityhave been less effective at countering in-stitutional and structural racism.

The conservative shift in court ap-pointees and a number of recent rulingshave limited the effectiveness of legalchallenges to institutionalized racism.One significant ruling was the SupremeCourt’s 2001 Sandoval decision that dis-criminatory effects cannot be challengedin court and that plaintiffs can only go to

court when they intend to show deliberateintent to discriminate. (MALDEF 2001)This ruling went against 25 years of legalprecedent. “The Scalia Court tears theheart out of Title VI,” notes Eric Mann, Di-rector of the Labor/Community StrategyCenter in Los Angeles. “Sandoval has de-fanged race-based challenges.” Indeed,Sandoval has had a dampening effect onlegal strategies to address institutionalracism in the courts.

Some of the legal achievements in the civ-il rights arena have also faced new chal-lenges. In 2003, for example, two SupremeCourt cases challenged the 1978 decisionin California vs. Bakke that established

the legality of affirmative action in uni-versity admissions. In Grutter vs.

Bollinger and Gratz vs. Bollinger, whiteapplicants to the University of Michiganclaimed that their denial was due to pref-erential treatment given to candidates ofcolor. While the U.S. Supreme Court didnot overrule the Bakke decision in eithercase, it did rule against the University ofMichigan’s system of allocating points toapplicants from underrepresented racialor ethnic groups.

The most effective legal approaches toracial justice have linked litigation withcommunity-based strategies. In the ab-sence of long-term organizing strategies,including community mobilization andefforts to shift public opinion, legalstrategies alone have been unable to re-verse patterns of discrimination or leadto race-conscious and just public policies.

Immigrant organizations have received little support, despite the factthat immigrants have become the target of hate crimes and increasedgovernment intrusions, detentions,and deportations.

Part of the challenge with trackingracial justice funding stems fromthe fact that “racial justice” is not

well defined within the funding commu-nity. Rick Cohen, Director of the NationalCommittee for Responsive Philanthropyasks, “Who gets to define what racial jus-tice work is?” Many advocates for racialjustice within foundations have notedthat a lack of a common understanding ofthe term is a key barrier to supporting fu-ture efforts. “Clarity of language reflectsclarity of thinking,” notes Needmor Foun-dation Director Dave Beckwith. “Definingjustice work around issues of race is real-ly important, and advancing this lan-guage is crucial to developing moresupport and more commitment to racialjustice.”

Issues of race and racial justice may beunderstood in explicit or implicit terms.An explicit racial analysis is race con-scious and centralizes issues of racismand racial inequities in shaping socialchange strategies. An implicit racialanalysis considers race indirectly or pe-ripherally—race is often implied or ac-knowledged, but perceived as secondaryto or subsumed under other root issuessuch as poverty. In some instances, theracial implications are indirect—that is,because race and poverty often overlap,people of color may benefit from funding

for issues such as affordable housing oreducation reform, while not being direct-ly targeted as beneficiaries.

Foundation staff responses varied widelyon the question of how to define racialjustice. Those with an explicit frameworkdefined racial justice as targeted effortsto specifically address issues of racial dis-crimination and racial inequities. “We donot have a definition of racial justicewithin the foundation,” says Haas Pro-gram Officer Hedy Chang, “but I define itas addressing institutional racism, wherepolicies and actions of institutions dis-proportionately and adversely impact var-ious racial groups.” Lori Villarosa, formerdirector of the Charles Stewart MottFoundation’s U.S. Race and Ethnic Rela-tions Grantmaking Program, similarly de-fined racial justice as “directlyaddressing institutional and societalracism, which is structural.”

Those in foundations without an explicit

racial justice agenda were often unable todefine the term or viewed racial justice asan implicit outcome of broader social jus-tice efforts. “I do not have a definition ofracial justice. So few foundations haverace issues as an explicit, separate field intheir program guidelines—it makes it dif-ficult to define,” admits Lance Lindblom,Chief Executive Officer and President ofthe Nathan Cummings Foundation. DebraHarrington, Program Officer of theWoods Fund in Chicago, described racialjustice as being “implicit in our guide-lines and mission statement, [however]the lens is poverty, not race, and by ad-dressing poverty we are generally lookingat people of color but not saying it direct-ly.” Others interviewed provided defini-

defining racial justice


“Defining justice work around issues ofrace is important, and advancing this language is crucial to developing morecommitment to racial justice.”

tions that fell in between the two. As thePresident of the Gerbode Family Fund ex-plained, “When I think of racial justice, Istart with the justice side of the equation.But, how can you think of justice outsideof racial terms? People of color tend to bedisproportionately marginalized and dis-criminated against in our society.”

These differences are not just semantics.They reflect real conflicts about howracism is understood and therefore whatinterventions are perceived as needed.Some analyses, while acknowledging thatracism is not a thing of the past, defineracism as individual biased attitudes(prejudice) and interpersonal actions (big-otry) between people of different races.Addressing racism within individualsmay require attitudinal change, overcom-ing internalized oppression, and/or coun-seling and support groups. Addressingracism between individuals often in-cludes diversity trainings, race relationsand tolerance workshops, or participationin multicultural activities.

In contrast, other racial analyses focus onmacro issues of institutional racism (un-equal impacts and outcomes based onrace, produced by key societal institu-tions) and structural racism (the normal-ization and legitimization of an array ofdynamics—historical, cultural, institu-tional, and interpersonal—that routinelyadvantage whites while producing cumu-lative and chronic adverse outcomes forpeople of color). Chang, of the Haas Foun-dation, stresses the difference betweenindividual and institutional racism. “In-stitutional discrimination is often not in-tentional but nonetheless has the effectof reinforcing the privilege of somegroups and the disadvantage of othergroups.” Alleviating racism at the institu-

tional and structural levels requires ex-posing systemic inequalities, confrontinginstitutional practices, and initiating pol-

icy reform. Thus, explicitly addressing theinterpersonal dynamics of racism doesnot in itself constitute racial justicework. Needmor’s Beckwith says, “I havebegun to see limitations in mere socialengagement across racial lines. That is acritical activity, but it does not necessari-ly lead to racial justice work. Nor are tra-ditional approaches to diversity andaffirmative action enough to advanceracial equality.”

Examples of funding for services withincommunities of color include communitydevelopment corporations, health cen-ters, arts programs, after school pro-grams, and other activities incommunities where poverty and race in-tersect. Work that focuses on interperson-al and intergroup relations includesdismantling racism trainings, diversityworkshops, or multicultural activities.But, as the chart on the following page il-lustrates, funding to communities of col-or for services and programs is not racialjustice funding, nor is funding that tar-gets interpersonal aspects of race andracism the same as promoting racial jus-tice. Racial justice work specifically tar-gets institutional and structural racismthrough public policy advocacy, organiz-ing, research and education, and move-ment building. The organizationsdescribed on the following pages illus-trate some of the range of racial justiceadvocacy.

Southern Echo’s Mississippi Education Work-ing Group: Southern Echo, founded in1989, has initiated and supported much


“Institutional discrimination is often not intentional but nonetheless has the effect of reinforcing the privilege ofsome groups and the disadvantage ofother groups.”

of the new organizing in Black com-munities in Mississippi. In its statementof philosophy, Echo founders write,“Racism is at the root of the problems fac-ing the Black community. Therefore thecommunity must acknowledge that an in-tegral part of empowerment is fightingracism.” Echo’s electoral redistrictingwork in the early 1990s brought it intocontact with other organizations acrossthe state. These organizations became thebase of the Mississippi Education Work-ing Group (MEWG). MEWG helped stopthe building of a whites-only publicschool in Tunica County and has initiateda successful administrative complaints

campaign to end the physical and mentalabuse of students of color by demandingaccess to support mandated under stateand federal laws. In 1997, the Mississippilegislature passed the Mississippi Ade-quate Education Program. MEWG’s organ-izing resulted in significant changes tothe legislation, providing a role for par-ents and grassroots organizations inevery phase of the process. The work ofSouthern Echo and MEWG was replicatedin Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Institute on Race and Poverty: IRP, an affili-ate of the University of Minnesota in Min-neapolis, combines research and analysis


Issues Activities Examples

Services/Programs inCommunities of Color

Poverty, economic disadvantage Education and youth programs,housing assistance, economicdevelopment, arts, health services, etc

• Boys and Girls Club

• Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services

• La Alianza Hispana

• Urban League

• La Clinica de la Raza

Interpersonal/Race Relations

Interpersonal / intergroup raceissues and relations

Dismantling racism, diversity,race relations, reconciliation,prejudice reduction

• Crossroads Ministry

• Challenging White Supremacyworkshops

Legal Advocacy

Specific policies, practices, andprocedures

Impact litigation, civil rights advocacy, legal services and defense

• NAACP Legal Defense Fund

• American Civil Liberties Union

• Mexican American Legal De-fense and Education Fund

• Asian Law Caucus

• National Immigration LawCenter

Racial Justice

Institutional/structural racismand discrimination

Grassroots activism, media advocacy, development of andadvocacy for alternative publicpolicies and regulatory procedures

• Make the Road by Walking

• Mississippi Education WorkingGroup

• Labor/Community StrategyCenter

• Institute on Race and Poverty

T Y P E S O F E X P L I C I T R A C E - B A S E D F U N D I N G

to expose racial inequities that resultfrom institutional practices and publicpolicies. IRP works to define racializedpoverty and its implications, and reframepublic discourse on race and poverty toimprove conditions for low-income peopleof color. IRP advocates multiple strate-gies, including research, policymaking,litigation, and public relations, and worksto increase opportunities for low-incomepeople of color to participate in democrat-ic processes and structures; publishesbooks and research reports; and hostsevents to inform policymakers and thepublic about critical race issues. Recentwork included research exposing thepractice of racial profiling in Minneapo-lis/St. Paul, numerous publications andarticles assessing the racial implicationsof urban sprawl, and a book assessing theintersection of race, education, and hous-ing policy.

Make the Road by Walking: In 1998, MRBWbegan documenting discrimination atwelfare offices, which led to an investiga-tion by the Department of Human Ser-vices Office of Civil Rights. Theinvestigation found New York City to bein violation of civil rights laws, prompt-ing 45 of 51 City Council members to en-dorse an act to provide equal access tosocial services. Says Andrew Friedman,co-director of MRBW, “Close to 100,000cases were improperly coded and [thosepeople] will now receive the services theyneed.” In addition, through MRBW’s ef-forts, two major hospitals have agreed topost new multilingual signs, translate im-portant written materials, hire staff in-terpreters and bilingual medicalpersonnel, assign senior personnel to co-ordinate language assistance services,provide comprehensive training to inter-preters about medical translation, trainall staff with the obligation to ensureequal access, and conduct ongoing moni-

toring. “A racial justice and civil rightsframework has been important,” reflectsFriedman. “If we had just framed our workas poor people’s issues, we would not havegotten the support from the broader civilrights, African American, and Latino com-munities.”

The Idaho Collaborative: Through an exten-sive, three-year campaign, the Idaho Com-munity Action Network (ICAN), IdahoWomen’s Network (IWN), and United Vi-sion for Idaho (UVI) worked in conjunc-tion with leaders of the immigrantcommunity to win one of the strongestfarmworker minimum wage laws in thecountry. These Idaho organizations madethe decision to use racial justice princi-ples to frame their first joint campaign,

in part because the partner organizationshad begun to address race and racismproactively within their own organiza-tions. ICAN, for example, has worked tomove from a primarily low-income, rural,white membership to a membership thatis multiracial, with a diversified leader-ship base. In 1999, with the assistance ofthe Northwest Federation of CommunityOrganizations, ICAN also pioneered a test-ing project of welfare offices that docu-mented racial and languagediscrimination and other barriers to ac-cessing the Children’s Health InsuranceProgram (CHIP).

Generation Y: In 2000, leaders of Genera-tion Y, a multiracial youth organization inChicago, were able to use a survey of stu-dents to document how youth of color


“If we had just framed our work as poor people’s issues, we would nothave gotten the support from the broader civil rights, African American,and Latino communities.”

were being suspended and expelled morethan other students—often for minor, non-violent offenses like chewing gum and be-ing tardy—to garner support from the CEOof Chicago Public Schools. Ultimately,their research and organizing efforts con-tributed to the development of an im-proved discipline system, nowimplemented in more than 25 city highschools. “We saw the criminalization ofyouth as a frontline attack on youth ofcolor in our communities and as one ofthe more blatant forms of institutionalracism,” explains lead organizer JeremyLahoud.

Labor/Community Strategy Center: Foundedin 1992, the Labor/Community StrategyCenter differs from civil rights organiza-tions that focus almost exclusively onrace and racism and from traditional com-munity organizing groups that focus on aclass analysis. The Strategy Center em-phasizes the intersection of race andclass as the key to progressive socialchange. Using this analytical lens, theStrategy Center has successfully namedand fought “transit racism”—allocatingpublic transportation monies to suburbancommuter trains while cutting back oncity bus services used by low-incomeBlack and Latino families. The StrategyCenter has also initiated efforts to ad-dress air pollution as a racial justice issueand to defeat the implementation of theU.S. Department of Justice’s “Weed andSeed” law enforcement program.

R A C I A L J U S T I C E F U N D I N G I N I T I AT I V E S

“Racial justice is distinct from ‘diversity’

and ‘awareness’ work. Racial justice is re-

dressing the ongoing harm done by racism

in our culture and our country.”

D AV E B E C KW ITH

Needmo r F ounda t i o n

Few foundations fund racial justicethrough a specific grantmaking programarea. Instead, several fund efforts to pro-mote racial equity as a secondary compo-nent of a broader funding area, such aspoverty or criminal justice. For example,under its “Strengthening U.S. Democracy”program, The Carnegie Foundation focus-es on education and testing reform, withan emphasis on teachers of color. Somefoundations also include racial justicevalues in their stated missions or pro-gram objectives. The Z. Smith ReynoldsFoundation, for example, notes that “[T]heFoundation actively seeks to promote ac-cess, equity, and inclusiveness; and to dis-courage discrimination based on race,ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic sta-tus, and other factors that deny the essen-tial humanity of all people.” Others fundcommunities of color to demonstrate “di-versity” in foundation giving practices.Finally, while a number of foundations donot have explicit racial justice giving pro-grams, a number of groups they supportengage in racial justice work. For exam-ple, through cross-cutting grants withinthe Transforming Neighborhoods pro-gram, the Annie E. Casey Foundation sup-ports racial justice efforts such as athree-year grant to the Aspen Institute todevelop tools for understanding structur-al racism.

Several large foundations do explicitlysupport racial justice efforts, includingthe Ford Foundation, JEHT Foundation,


“We saw the criminalization of youth asa frontline attack on youth of color in ourcommunities and as one of the moreblatant forms of institutional racism.”

Levi Strauss Foundation, Open Society In-stitute, and the Rockefeller Foundation,as do many smaller private and communi-ty foundations that support social justiceor community organizing. Below are briefsummaries of several different racial jus-tice funding initiatives.

Akonadi Foundation: The Akonadi Founda-tion is a family foundation based in Oak-land, California, whose mission is “towork with others to eliminate racism,with a particular focus on structural andinstitutional racism.” When applying forAkonadi support, groups are required toprovide an “analysis of institutionalracism and the landscape of race relationsin the U.S. today.” Grantees employ a vari-ety of programmatic approaches, includ-ing research, policy work, advocacy,litigation, organizing, media, arts, diversi-ty training, education, and other tools. “Iam trained as a lawyer, and I believe litiga-tion is a key tactic, but it should be sup-ported by other strategies, such ascommunity organizing and advocacy,”notes Executive Director Quinn DeLaney.Grants range from $10,000 to $50,000,and grantees include organizations suchas the Asian Pacific Environmental Net-work for its work on environmentalracism, the Center for Third World Orga-nizing for racial justice movement build-ing, Justice Matters Institute to eliminateracism in public schools, and Oyate to em-power parents in the Native Americancommunity to teach their children thehistory of their culture.

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation: In 1994, theCharles Stewart Mott Foundation initiat-ed its U.S. Race and Ethnic RelationsGrantmaking Program to address raceand racism in America. According to for-mer Program Director Lori Villarosa, thisprogram had the dual goals of “under-standing racial and ethnic differences,

and directly addressing institutional andsocietal racism.” Between 1994 and 2002,the Foundation disbursed more than $21million in grants under this program areato a wide variety of organizations and ac-tivities, such as People’s Institute for Sur-vival and Beyond’s Undoing InstitutionalRacism Program, the Southern Institutefor Education and Research’s efforts toimprove intergroup relations, counterprejudice, and promote anti-racist coali-tions, and the Institute on Race andPoverty for their work on racial segrega-tion. Having led one of the more estab-lished racial justice initiatives, Villarosawas able to reflect on program successesand challenges. “We were most successfulwhen we not only ‘led with race,’ but alsowere really clear about how a racial analy-sis fit into the overall strategy and how toengage a broader segment of the community.”

Funding Exchange: For over ten years, FEXhas sponsored the Saguaro Fund to sup-port organizing efforts serving and led bypeople of color. The Saguaro Fund pro-vides grants ranging from $5,000 to

$15,000 to a variety of efforts, including:Padres Unidos’ work promoting educationequity in Denver; Communities AgainstRape and Abuse in Seattle to organizeBlack communities against sterilizationand abuse of women of color and poorwomen; and the Grassroots Institute forFundraising Training (GIFT) to build thecapacity of grassroots social justicegroups and people of color to raise moneyfor their organizations. In 2001, FEX cre-


“We were most successful when we not only ‘led with race,’ but also were clearabout how a racial analysis fit into the overall strategy.”

ated the Peace and Racial Justice Fund toemphasize the connection between peaceand antiracism in the aftermath of Sept.11. “We talked about exclusion…We knewwe were heading down the road of specialregistration, incarceration, and racial pro-filing,” remembers Charlene Allen, FEXGrantmaking Director. “We wanted tomake the link not about security butabout racial justice.”

Open Society Institute: While OSI primarilyfunds U.S.-based racial justice efforts in-directly through programs such as Crimi-nal Justice and Access to Justice, in 2002OSI granted over $2.5 million in post-Sept.11 grants that focus primarily on civil lib-erties, immigrant rights and detention is-sues, and antiprofiling advocacy. OSIfounder and chairperson George Soros an-nounced dramatic future shifts in fund-ing, and in its Summer 2003 StatusReport, OSI’s Vice President and Directorof U.S. Programs Gara LaMarche outlinedtheir plan to consolidate resources into anew Strategic Opportunities Fund and aJustice Fund, which will include supportfor immigrant rights, civil rights and lib-erties, and access to legal services formarginalized communities.

Racial Justice Funding Collaborative: TheRJFC, started in 2003, is a collaboration ofstate, local, and national funders thatseeks to fund partnerships betweenlawyers and community organizations“using legal and non-legal tools to achieveequity and fairer policies for communi-ties marginalized by race, ethnicity, andimmigrant or citizenship status.” RJFChas engaged funders in conversationsabout successful models for racial justicework. “We found that a lot of funders havemoved away from racial justice for a more‘universalist’ approach, which is supposedto include race, but in the end issues ofrace never seems to get funded,” says


A N E M E R G I N G R E S O U R C E F O R

R A C I A L J U S T I C E

In early 2003, Lori Villarosa, former directorof the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation’sU.S. Race and Ethnic Relations Grantmak-

ing Program, joined the Leadership Confer-ence on Civil Rights Education Fund to directa new effort called the Philanthropic Initiativefor Racial Equity. “The goal is to increase theamount and effectiveness of resources aimedat combating institutional and structural racismin communities through capacity-building, edu-cation, and convening of grantseekers andgrantmakers,” notes Villarosa. “We will work tobuild linkages and understanding among an-tiracist and civil rights organizations and thefoundation community.” Having convened a na-tional gathering on structural racism, this newinitiative has four primary objectives:

• Helping race-focused nonprofits developand maintain healthy relationships withfunding organizations and mainstream non-profit organizational management entities;

• Assisting antiracist training organizations totailor their programs for the use of grantmakers;

• Increasing funders’ understanding of thestrengths and weaknesses of various racerelations or antiracist work, and assistingthem in assessing their institutional needsaround race and diversity as it relates tograntmaking practice; and

• Assisting community leaders and their localfunders in designing and implementing themost effective programs in order to docu-ment and to advance the skills of thegrantseekers and the grantmakers.

RJFC Director Berta Colón. “Part of theproblem is this attitude that racism willnever end. Our collaboration is trying todevelop concrete tools and examples thatshow how racial justice work can be effec-tive, instead of having abstract conversa-tions about race that get you nowhere.”RJFC has not yet completed its first grant-ing cycle, but grants are expected to rangefrom $50,000 to $100,000.

F O U N D AT I O N D I V E R S I T Y A N D

S U P P O R T F O R R A C I A L J U S T I C E

“People of color are expected to assimilate

into the foundation culture [simultane-

ously acting as] representatives of their

communities… expectations not placed on

their white counterparts. “

J o i n t A f f i n i t y G ro up s , “ T h e Mean i n g a nd Impac t o fB o a rd a nd S t a f f D i v e r s i t y i n t h e Ph i l a n t h ro p i c

F i e l d , ” 2 0 0 2

While some foundations have developedexplicit racial justice funding initiatives,many others have prioritized the work todiversify their staff and trustees andhave put a stronger emphasis on diversityas a criterion for selecting organizationsthey support. Yet, increased diversity infoundations has not resulted in increasedfunding for communities of color; it has

instead paralleled a decreased share infoundation support for communities ofcolor. “Diversity may not be the answer totransforming foundation practices,”notes National Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy Director Rick Cohen. “Justlook at the outcomes of diversifying foun-dations to include more women. About 75percent of foundation staff are nowwomen, and they have also become a sig-nificant donor base, but giving to womenand girls remains a low priority, as doessocial justice.”

Analysis of data from the Council onFoundations and Joint Affinity Groups re-veals the following:

• Between 1984 and 2002, the percent ofpeople of color in professional staff po-sitions at foundations, which includesprogram officers and chief executives,increased from 13 percent to 24.5 per-cent.

• People of color are one-third of pro-gram officers, but only six percent ofchief executives/chief giving officers.

• The least change has occurred on foun-dation boards. In 1997, whites made upon average between 87.4 to 93.4 per-cent of community, private, and publicfoundation boards.


0

20

40

60

80

100

WHITE

PEOPLE OF COLOR

CHIEF EXECUTIVE/ CHIEF GIVING OFFICER

ADMINISTRATIVEPROGRAM OFFICERS

TOTAL

75.5%

24.5%

34.5%31.1%

5.8%

68.9%65.5% 94.2%

R A C I A L A N D E T H N I C D I V E R S I T Y I N F O U N D AT I O N S

Source: “2002 GrantmakersSalary and Benefits Report.” Council on Foundations

Thus, while there has been an increase indiversity at foundations, this has notreached the highest levels of leadershipor governance. This may explain why in-creased diversity has not led to moregrant dollars for racial justice efforts. Arecent study of 512 foundation staff andboard members supports the assertionthat people of color continue to face nu-

merous challenges in navigating founda-tion hierarchies. The study found that“glass ceilings” still exist for people of col-or and that people of color have less in-volvement in foundation governance.Interviews with foundation employees ofcolor indicated that efforts to address is-sues in communities of color were mar-ginalized within the funding institution.


M A K I N G T H E C A S E F O R R A C I A L J U S T I C E A M O N G M A J O R D O N O R S

In 2002 alone, individuals in the U.S. donated nearly 184 billion dollars. (American Association ofFundraising Counsel 2003) Differences in the dollar value of giving between people of color andwhites are attributable to vast disparities in income and assets. A recent report by the U.S. Fed-

eral Reserve reveals that the racial gap in net worth has significantly increased over the past tenyears; between 1992 and 2001, the gap widened to $103,800—a 44.8 percent increase. (U.S. Fed-eral Reserve 2003) In 2001, for example, the median white family income was $42,500 plus a networth of $120,900, compared to $25,700 and $17,100 respectively for people of color.

Yet, recent research indicates that people of color, and African Americans in particular, may actual-ly give more than whites as a percentage of income and assets. (Urban Institute 2003 and TheChronicle of Philanthropy 2003) The slowly growing donor base of color has led to research on phi-lanthropy in communities of color. In 2002, Lisa Durán of the Grassroots Institute for FundraisingTraining published Changing the Color of Philanthropy: the Politics of Philanthropy and SocialChange, which documents the vibrant history of philanthropy in U.S. communities of color. The re-port demonstrates that people of color are avid philanthropists, whether it is defined as giving to es-tablished charities or as giving goods andservices outside the nuclear family without anyexpectation of economic return.

Giving from communities of color, however,does not always translate into increased fund-ing for racial justice. “One of the biggest chal-lenges is getting donors of color to give tosocial change instead of direct service,” notesErica Hunt, Director of the 21St Century Foun-dation. “People are open to racial justice giving,but you have to talk about urgent and pressingissues, like Black voter disenfranchisement inFlorida, and draw the lines between cause andeffect.” Getting individuals to donate to commu-nity organizations is also an area the Grass-roots Institute for Fundraising Training believeswould be beneficial. “Foundations must sup-port capacity-building of organizations led bypeople of color to raise money directly fromtheir own communities,” says Durán.

INDIVIDUALS 76.3%

($183.73 billion)

CORPORATIONS 5.1%

($12.9 billion)BEQUESTS 7.5%

($18.1 billion)

FOUNDATIONS 11.2%

($26.9 billion)

C O N T R I B U T I O N S R E A C H $ 2 4 1 B I L L I O N I N 2 0 0 2

Source: AAFRC USA Giving Trends 2003

Racial justice work can be effective atachieving broad-based policy reforms.

As the work of the Labor/CommunityStrategy Center, the Mississippi Educa-tion Working Group, and Make the Roadby Walking illustrates, organizationshave used a race analysis as an effectivesocial change strategy. Racial justice cam-paigns have resulted in broad-based poli-cy reforms, the building andstrengthening of multiracial formations,and increased organizational member-ship of people of color.

In recent years, foundation support for racialjustice work has declined.

The data shows that while the actual foun-dation dollars flowing into communitiesof color have increased over the years, thefunding level has not kept pace with over-all foundation giving. Similarly, supportfor social action and civil rights is wan-ing, and support for race-based and immi-grant rights groups within this categoryis a low priority. The recent economic im-provement has not significantly benefit-ed low-income communities, and theaftermath of Sept. 11 has also had an ad-verse impact on organizations servingcommunities of color and/or engaged inracial justice work.

There is not a consensus among fundersabout what racial justice work is.

Many foundations consider race implicit-ly, subsumed under other funding cate-

gories. Even among funders who explicit-ly consider race in funding decisions,there are differing perspectives aboutwhat it means to support racial justice.

While many funders are more comfortablefocusing on poverty rather than race, someare becoming more explicit and strategic intheir support for racial justice.

Many funders admit there is an overall re-luctance in the progressive world to tar-get funds towards racial justice work.Nevertheless, as the initiatives of theAkonadi Foundation, the Funding Ex-change’s Saguaro Fund, and the RacialJustice Funding Collaborative illustrate,several foundations and funder collabora-tives have recognized the importance ofracial justice work and have begun target-ing funds explicitly to support it.

Greater diversity among foundation staffhas not increased giving to communities ofcolor or racial justice efforts.

Many foundations have worked to diversi-fy their staff and trustees, yet this diver-sity has not resulted in increased fundingto communities of color. Rather, in-creased diversity of foundation staff hasparalleled a decreased share in founda-tion support for communities of color,leaving foundation staff of color unsup-ported in the attempt to move foundationdollars to communities of color and tomake racial justice a foundation priority.


Several observations have emerged from this study that can inform the work of bothfunders and racial justice practitioners. The recommendations that follow high-

light the ways in which funders can effectively support racial justice efforts and ensurethat racial justice becomes and/or remains a priority within their foundations.

K E Y O B S E R VAT I O N S

observations & recommendations

Make racial justice an explicit funding category.

While many foundations indirectly sup-port racial justice through broader fund-ing categories, an explicit racial justicefunding category will help refine an un-derstanding of racial justice work and en-sure support for effective racial justiceefforts.

Set racial justice criteria for selectinggrantees.

Criteria for selecting grantees should in-clude sustaining the leadership of peopleof color, having an analysis of the currentworkings of race and racism, and articu-lating a plan for racial justice advocacy.

Invest in and prioritize capacity-building.

Provide organizations with resources todeepen and broaden their infrastructure,particularly by developing the capacity toraise a larger proportion of their budgetsfrom grassroots fundraising, majordonors, and other non-foundationsources.

Differentiate between individual acts/atti-tudes of prejudice and institutionalizedracism, and prioritize work aimed at sys-temic change.

Addressing the disparate outcomes thatresult from supposedly race-neutral pub-lic policies and private sector practices iscentral to effective and transformativeracial justice work.

Support research to identify model racialjustice initiatives.

It is important to not only understand thesuccesses, but also unpack the key chal-lenges to engaging in racial justice work.Examples include the Lewis MumfordCenter’s Metropolitan Racial and EthnicChange Initiative, the Institute for Raceand Poverty’s research linking housingdiscrimination and education policy, andthe Applied Research Center’s analysis ofmultiracial coalitions and new immigrantformations.


R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R F U N D E R S

S O U R C E L I S T

Aizcorbe, Ana M., Arthur B. Kennickell, and Kevin B. Moore. “Recent Changes in U.S. Family Fi-nances: Evidence from the 1998 and 2001 Survey of Consumer Finance.” Federal Reserve Bulletin,

U.S. Federal Reserve. January 2003. www.federalreserve.gov

Aienz, Josefina. “Giving Trends.” Foundation Center. 2003.

American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFC) Trust for Philanthropy. “Giving USA.” 2003

Anft, Michael. “Immigration-Rights Organizations Face Fallout from September 11,” “Seeking a Big-ger Share,” and “Tapping Ethnic Wealth.” The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Special Report. January 10,2002, Vol. 14, Issue 6. www.philanthropy.com

Anft, Michael. “Assisting Terrorism’s Other Victims” and “Hard times for Immigrants.” The Chroni-

cle of Philanthropy. Special Report. September 4, 2003, Vol 15, No. 22. www.philanthropy.com

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population bySex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin.” 2003. www.bls.gov

Burbridge, Díaz, Odendahl and Shaw. “The Meaning and Impact of Board and Staff Diversity in thePhilanthropic Field: Findings from a National Study.” Joint Affinity Groups. 2002.

Castro, Paul and Raymond Castro. “Fundraising Challenges in Latino Communities: The Challengeto Traditional Philanthropy.” National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, The State of Philan-

thropy 2002. www.ncrp.org

Chronicle of Philanthropy. “Immigration-Rights Organizations Face Fallout from September 11.”Vol. 14 Issue 6.

Chronicle of Philanthropy. “How Americans Give: Percentage of Discretionary Income Given toCharity by Race and Ethnicity.” May 1, 2003. www.philanthropy.com

Council on Foundations. “Cultures of Caring: Philanthropy in Diverse American Communities.”Washington, D.C. June 1999.

Council on Foundations. “Foundation Salary Report,” 1999. table 5 and figure 6.

Council on Foundations. “Grantmakers Salary and Benefits Report,” 2002. table 2.4 and figure 2.5.

Current Population Survey. “Health Insurance Coverage Statistics and Type of Coverage by SelectedCharacteristics: 2001.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau. September 2002.

Current Population Survey. “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2002.” U.S. Census Bu-reau and U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration. September 2003.

Delgado, Gary. “Multiracial Formations: Instruments for Social Change.” Applied Research Center.2003. www.arc.org.

Delgado, Gary. “Power, Participation, & State-Based Politics: An Evaluation of the Ford Foundation’sCollaborations that Count Initiative.” Applied Research Center. 2003.

Derryk, Dennis and Rikki Azbug. “The WTC Tragedy ripple Effect Devastates Neighborhood Non-profits.” New School University. Working paper. December 2001. www.newschool.edu

Derryk, Dennis and Rikki Azbug. “Withstanding Shock? Black and Latino Organizations in NewYork City in the Aftermath of September 11th. ” New School University. Presented at the annualconference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and voluntary Action, Mon-treal, November 2002.

Durán, Lisa. “Caring for Each Other: Philanthropy in Communities of Color.” Grassroots Fundrais-

ing Journal. Vol. 20, No. 5, September 2001.


Fernandez, Sandy. “Hispanics Erase Myths with Money.” New York Times. November 18, 1998

Frankenberg, Lee, Orfield. “A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools: Are We Losing theDream?” The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. January 2003. www.civilrightsproject.har-vard.edu

Foundation Center. “Foundation Giving Trends 2003,” “Foundation Giving Trends 2000,” and “Foun-dation Center Stats 1998-2001.” Foundation Center Statistical Services.

Hair, Penda D. “Louder than Words: Lawyers, Communities and the Struggle for Justice.” The Ad-vancement Project. March 2001. www.advanceproj.com

Ho, Mimi and Gary Delgado. “Mapping the Immigrant Infrastructure.” Applied Research Center.Spring 2002. www.arc.org

Independent Sector. “Giving and Volunteering in the United States.” 2001. www.independentsec-tor.org

Independent Sector. “Charitable Giving: September 11th and Beyond.” 2003. www.independentsec-tor.org

Johnson, Tammy. Reporting on Race, Education and No Child Left Behind: A Guide for Journalists.

Race and Public Policy Project of the Applied Research Center. 2003 www.arc.org

Kasper, Gabriel and Henry Ramos. “Latino Philanthropy in Transition: A Comparative Overview ofTrends and Lessons from the Field.” National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, The State of

Philanthropy 2002. www.ncrp.org

LaMarche, Gara. “A Status Report on Changes in the Open Society Institute’s U.S. Programs.” OpenSociety Institute. July 31, 2003

Lawrence, Steven and Josefina Aienz. “Foundation Yearbook: Facts and Figures on Private and Com-munity Foundations.” Foundation Center. 2003.

Lipman, Harvey. “Minority Homeowners Give More to Charity than Whites, Study Finds.” The

Chronicle of Philanthropy. January 10, 2002. www.philanthropy.com

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Applied Research Center.“Supreme Court Blunts Civil Rights Sword with Sandoval Decision.” ColorLines web exclusive.www.arc.org

National Center for Health Statistics. “Health, United States 2002.” U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.” www.cdc.gov

National Network of Grantmakers. “Social Change Grantmaking in the U.S.: The Mid 1990s” Octo-ber 6, 2000. www.nng.org

Sanchez, Diane and Rosie Zamora. “Current Issues Affecting U.S. Hispanic Foundations and Non-profit Directors/Trustees: A Survey of the Field.” Nuevos Senderos. Houston, TX: Arte PublicoPress, 1999.

Themba-Nixon, Makani. “Grass Roots Innovative Policy Program.” Applied Research Center. Septem-ber 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Summary File 3 (SF 3).” Census 2000. P6. RACE [8], P7. Hispanic or Latino byRace [17], Poverty Status in 1999 by Age P159B-159G

U.S. Census Bureau. “National Projections of Resident Populations by Age, Sex, Race and HispanicOrigin: 1999 to 2100.” Population Projects Program, Population Division. January 13, 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Poverty in the United States: 2001; Table 1. Age, Sex, Household Relationship,


Race and Hispanic Origin—Poverty Status of People by Selected Characteristics in 2001.” CurrentPopulation Survey, 2002.

Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers. “The Philanthropic Response to September11th: A Six Month Report.” March 2002. www.washingtongrantmakers.org

Weiss, Mattie. “Youth Rising.” Applied Research Center. Fall 2003.

I N T E R V I E W L I S T

Josefina Aienz, Researcher, Foundation CenterLeticia Alcantar, former Program Officer, Tides FoundationCharlene Allen, Grantmaking Director, Funding ExchangeDave Beckwith, Director, Needmor FoundationBettye Brentley, Associate Director, Neighborhood Funders GroupHedy Chang, Program Officer, Haas FoundationRick Cohen, Director, National Committee for Responsive PhilanthropyBerta Colón, Director, Racial Justice Funding CollaborativeDayna Cunningham, Former Program Officer, Rockefeller FoundationSandra Davis, former Program Officer, Tides FoundationQuinn Delaney, Executive Director, Akonadi FoundationLouis Delgado, Graduate Program Director for the Philanthropy & Nonprofit Sector Program, Loy-ola UniversityLisa Durán, Grassroots Institute for Fundraising TrainingAndrew Friedman, Co-Director, Make the Road by WalkingJoan Garner, Executive Director, Southern Partners FundLeeAnn Hall, Director, Northwest Federation of Community OrganizationsDebra Harrington, Program Officer, Woods FundErica Hunt, Director, 21St Century Foundation Jeanne Kracher, Director, Crossroads MinistryThomas Layton, Director, Gerbode Family FundSpence Limbocker, Director, Neighborhood Funders GroupLance Lindlom, President and CEO, Nathan Cummings FoundationArthur and Sue Lloyd, Major DonorsSara Mersha, Director, Direct Action for Rights and EqualityDaranee Petsod, Director, Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees Dawn Phillips, Director, People United for a Better OaklandJune Rostan, Director, Southern Empowerment ProjectMark Toney, former Director, Center for Third World OrganizingLori Villarosa, Director, Philanthropic Initiative for Racial EquitySpruiell White, Program Officer, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationSeattle Major Donor Focus Group

R E A D E R S

Rick Cohen (listed above); Kim Klein Director of Chardon Press; Tani Takagi, former consultant forthe Ford Foundation Collaborations that Count Initiative; Quinn Delaney (listed above)


P R I N C I PA L I N V E S T I G ATO R S

Will Pittz and Rinku Sen

P R I M A R Y R E S E A R C H

Menachem Krajcer

C O P Y E D I TO R

Susan Starr

P R O O F R E A D E R

Koda Borgelt-Mose

D E S I G N & P R O D U C T I O N

Mónica Hernández

C O V E R P H OTO

Allen Johnson

P R I N T I N G

Sundance Press, an employee owned company

Funding for this report provided by Tides Foundation

© Applied Research Center, Spring 2004


Applied Research Center

Applied Research Center3781 BroadwayOakland, California 94611(510) 653-3415 (510) 653-3427 faxwww.arc.org

Documents

Foundation Giving and Communities of Color