Reflections on foundations and social justice
There are some concepts that are so compelling and motivating that they capture the imagination and spirit of people, regardless of culture or country of origin. The ideas are so powerful in their vision that even when the institutions that are responsible for fulfilling the vision fail to do so, people continue to have faith in the value of the underlying concept. The words freedom, equality and social justice are such concepts because they affirm that there are certain basic human rights, inclusive of political participation and access to healthcare and housing, to which each citizen is entitled.
I want to talk about three things. First, I want to talk about how I define the concepts of social justice and social justice grantmaking. Second, I want to talk about some of the barriers that prevent foundations from engaging in social justice grantmaking. Third, I want to talk about how foundations can overcome these barriers and begin to more actively engage in social justice grantmaking.
Before starting, it is essential that you understand the multiple shortcomings and perhaps the one strength that I bring to this discussion. As a practitioner-scholar, I have learned that it is important to understand the experiences and worldview of the presenter. Despite my best efforts to develop and broaden my world perspective, like most Americans, I bring a limited understanding of the world outside the US. I speak only one language and have never lived outside the US. While I have a deep appreciation of how culture, tradition and the legal framework shape philanthropy in different countries, the examples that I will draw on are primarily drawn from the American context.
The one possible strength that I bring to the discussion of social justice is my life as an African American male growing up and living in the US. The historical experience of African Americans, from their forced arrival into the US as slaves to enduring legalized segregation to the quasi-equality that exists today, has shaped my views about the role and importance of social justice. I use the phrase quasi-equality to acknowledge that while African Americans enjoy greater opportunities than at any other time in their history, enormous disparities remain between African Americans and white Americans in the areas of wealth, jobs, health and healthcare, access to housing and criminal incarceration.
What is social justice grantmaking and why is it important?
For the purposes of my remarks, social justice grantmaking is defined as the efforts of foundations to change the current power relationships that exist between citizens and their relationship to government, business and non-governmental sectors. Social justice grantmaking attempts to ensure that society provides equal access to opportunities for all citizens and ensures a minimum quality of life for all. Grantmaking is used here to encompass everything ranging from charity, the support of basic social needs while leaving the underlying social system intact, to social justice grantmaking, efforts to change the underlying systems so as to improve social outcomes for a particular group. This is not a question of ‘either/or’ for foundations but rather a question of how to balance both activities in the context of their particular environment.
Let me relate a story I once heard which I think illustrates the difference between charity and social justice grantmaking. Two doctors, a general practitioner and an epidemiologist, were standing near a river when a body floated down. Both rushed in to pull the person out and began administering first aid. Another body floated down and again they rushed into the river. As the next body came floated down, the general practitioner looked on in disbelief as the epidemiologist started to walk away. The general practitioner asked, ‘Where are you going?’ The epidemiologist responded that she was headed upstream to find out where all the bodies were coming from and stop it at the source.
At its best, social justice philanthropy tries to determine the cause of social inequities and correct them at the source. In fact, a key justification for the existence of foundations is that they provide the risk capital within a society to test innovative solutions to systemic problems. It is this notion of innovative solutions that have the potential to change the underlying system, and not support of charity, that inspires citizens to continue to believe in the power of foundations to make positive contributions to society – even when foundations fail to meet these expectations.
In democratic societies, citizens determine the balance of power held by the government, business and non-governmental sector. In this context, the non-governmental sector refers to both grantmaking foundations and grantseeking NGOs. As I will discuss more fully, the relationships between the non-governmental, government and business sectors represent a delicate set of checks and balances. In a democracy, citizens elect the government. Government regulates what NGOs and businesses can and cannot do, as well as determining the level of wealth accumulation by individuals in the business sector, which often provides the capital base for foundations and donations for NGOs. Businesses and NGOs lobby representatives of government to enact or change legislation in ways that are favourable to their point of view on an issue.
Achieving this balance of power between the three sectors is made more difficult by the blurring of responsibilities across sectors. In the US, duties once performed by the government are now outsourced to business and NGOs. Some NGOs have developed separate profit-making businesses, the revenue from which supports their non-governmental programmes. And a growing number of businesses are applying for grants from the government and foundations to carry out what was once traditional non-governmental work.
Why is social justice grantmaking so difficult?
If social justice grantmaking has the potential to fundamentally reduce or eliminate social inequality, why do so few foundations appear willing to engage in it? There are at least five reasons, described below, that could account for this reluctance.
Unwillingness to acknowledge power relationships
In general, foundations appear to be extremely uncomfortable about acknowledging that they have power and equally reluctant to exercise their power to promote social change. Power is used here to mean the ability to influence or control the outcome of events. The heavy reliance of foundations on programme grants with specific outcomes and a short duration rather than operating grants in support of mission is, in part, a way of keeping control. This is not a debate about setting outcomes for evaluation. Changing a particular social system is an outcome that can be measured. At least part of foundations’ reluctance stems from a fear of retaliation from the government and business sectors.
Unfortunately, such fears may not be entirely unfounded. In the US, the perception that the voter registration efforts of the Ford Foundation in the 1960s may have altered the outcomes of two local elections is widely thought to have led to new government regulation of foundations in this area.[1] Rather than viewing governmental regulation as an appropriate part of the normal checks and balances of the three sectors, fear of regulation has served as a powerful disincentive for foundations to engage in voter registration or governmental lobbying efforts.
In fact, US foundations have become so reluctant to support the advocacy, lobbying and public policy activities of non-profit organizations that there are major efforts under way to convince foundations of the legality and importance of such efforts.[2] Unfortunately, without the engagement of foundations in social justice grantmaking, their support for charity amounts to support and affirmation of the social outcomes that result from the current social system.
Foundations’ allegiance to the social systems that created them
At its core, social justice grantmaking is based on a belief that some aspect of society is inequitable and needs to be changed to create fairer outcomes. It is unlikely that there will be many individuals who have been successful in the private sector who will want to develop a philanthropy whose purpose is to change the status quo. After all, these wealthy individuals have been successful and reaffirmed by the existing system and power relationships. While they may recognize a need for changes around access to and participation in the existing system, it is difficult to imagine that they would consent to be at the vanguard for wholesale changes to the entire system. Even when the founders of a foundation have died, it is likely that those who are subsequently recruited to the board will be identified because they share the same broad values and come from the same social stratum as the founders.
In the US, the major movements for social change – whether they involve equality and rights for women, people of colour, including African Americans, people with disabilities, or gays and lesbians – have been led and initially financed by members of those groups. Typically, it is only after the idea has gained some initial acceptance by the general public that one sees substantial funding from foundations.[3]
Vulnerability of foundation structures
Different foundation structures may make it easier or more difficult to engage in charity as opposed to social justice grantmaking. For example, foundations associated with corporations may be more reluctant to engage in social justice grantmaking out of concern that it may bring about unwanted government regulation of their industry or generate ill will on the part of their customers or potential customers that would affect the sale of their products.
Private foundations and community foundations in which board members continue to have ongoing business interests may find it difficult to engage in social justice grantmaking if it alienates their business associates and personal friends or hinders those individuals’ relationships with businesses or government. Lastly, community foundations may shy away from social justice grantmaking and convening if they perceive that such activities will make it harder to attract wealthy donors who have been successful in business or to partner with government.
Lack of courage to withstand controversy
In general, foundations are uncomfortable with controversy. We want everyone to agree with and be supportive of our actions. Unlike the government and private sectors, which have learned to accept the reality of public criticism for their actions, foundations seem to be very worried about their public reputations. Again, there is good reason for this. Controversy brings with it the possibility of retaliation by the other two sectors as well as the possibility of public disapproval. At worst, either of these outcomes has the potential to lead to disastrous consequences for foundations.
The belief that significant resources are required
There is a persistent belief that social justice grantmaking requires significant grantmaking resources. It does not. Often, simply bringing people together to talk about an issue publicly is enough to begin to influence public opinion and change the system. Raising the public profile of social inequities related to poor people, people of colour, women, individuals with disabilities, or gays and lesbians does not require large amounts of money. But it does require the will and the courage to use the foundation’s cachet to legitimize a topic as being worthy of discussion. Creating public dialogue around social inequalities the existing system has either created or ignores can provide the impetus for change by community groups, business or government. In fact, sometimes the very act of a foundation raising an issue can give the issue a public legitimacy and importance that it previously lacked.
Encouraging foundations to engage in social justice grantmaking
There are several things that foundations might consider if they want to more consistently engage in social justice grantmaking. The most important thing is to acknowledge that social justice grantmaking, with all of its potential risks, is a key part of its grantmaking strategy. Statements of intent are a necessary precursor to establishing and reinforcing the behaviour that the foundation wants to engage in. Once the intent is established, it is necessary to act on and measure progress in having the behaviour match the words.
Foundations should also consider developing a risk allocation model for each grantmaking priority similar to the asset allocation model that is used for their investment portfolios. This is to help foundations identify the level of risk that they are willing to take in each grantmaking area and what the risk will look like.
The development of a risk allocation model for grantmaking has at least two advantages. First, it allows the board and staff of a foundation to set internal expectations about what risks are acceptable, ie who the foundation is willing to offend, and to think through how those who feel threatened by the change might respond. Second, it enables the foundation to measure whether its professed willingness to engage in social justice grantmaking is matched by its actions and its willingness to consistently take the necessary risks. Each grant can be categorized as high, moderate or low risk. High-risk grants will carry a greater risk of controversy and conflict but have a greater potential to create meaningful social change. High-risk grants are not likely to represent more than 25 per cent of a foundation’s grantmaking and, as stated earlier, they do not necessarily have to be large grants. In addition, foundations should monitor the number and size of programme and operating grants to help determine the extent that they are encouraging flexible responses by NGOs.
It is important for foundations to understand that social justice grantmaking encompasses a wide range of grantmaking strategies. Grants that support educating the public about social inequities or convening citizens around key issues, which lead the general public to understand and then insist on reforms in some aspect of business or government, can be of critical importance in transforming the existing system. Often, the challenge is simply to give voice and public attention to troubling issues.
Similarly, supporting the development of organizations by communities affected by social injustice is one of the most important things a foundation can do. The unfortunate reality is that foundations typically follow social justice trends rather than initiating them. This suggests that an essential strategy is to support the development and capacity of NGOs that represent the groups affected by the social inequity, so that they can advocate on their own behalf and, as a result, leverage greater support for their issue from all three sectors. In addition, these groups will have an uncompromising and impatient voice which makes them at once both effective advocates and worrisome to foundations who can’t fully control them.
Foundations must articulate to citizens and representatives of the business and government sectors that foundations play an essential role within a democratic society in providing the risk capital to make society more equitable. Without this argument being made consistently, with examples to support the claim, the government and business sectors are more likely to try to limit the role of foundations and NGOs to focusing on charity rather than social justice grantmaking. As part of this, foundations must become comfortable about publicizing their social justice grantmaking activities and accepting the controversy that is likely to result.
Conclusion
In a democratic society, foundations and grantseeking NGOs play an essential role in helping to maintain balance between the competing interests of government and business in providing social equity for all citizens. When foundations fail to engage in social justice grantmaking, society loses a vital counterweight for ensuring that all citizens are treated fairly. By such inaction, foundations also undermine a key justification for their role within a democratic society.
Finally, and perhaps most important, when foundations fail to engage in social justice grantmaking, it may lead those groups that are treated unfairly to seek unacceptable solutions for change outside of the democratic system rather than relying on peaceful mechanisms for change within the system. Only when social justice is achieved for all citizens can foundations legitimately focus all their efforts on charity.
1 Thomas A Troyer (2000) The 1969 Private Foundation Law: Historical perspective on its origins and underpinnings (Washington DC: Council on Foundations).
2 Alliance for Justice, ‘Support Grantees That Lobby’ (www.allianceforjustice.org) and Elizabeth J Reid and Maria D Montilla (2002) Exploring Organizations and Advocacy, Vol 2 (Washington DC: Urban Institute).
3 Emmett D Carson, ‘The Roles of Indigenous and Institutional Philanthropy in Advancing Social Justice’, in Charles T Clotfelter and Thomas Ehrlich (eds) (1999) Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector in a Changing America (New York: The American Assembly/Columbia University) pp 248–274, and Emmett D Carson, ‘The Seven Deadly Myths of the U.S. Nonprofit Sector: Implications for promoting social justice worldwide’, in Lynn Huntley et al (eds) (2001) Beyond Racism: Race and inequality in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reienner Publishers) pp 415–434.
Emmett D Carson, PhD, is president of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. He can be contacted at edcarson@siliconvalleycf.org
This article is based on Emmett Carson’s remarks at the Synergos Senior Fellows Meeting in Oaxaca City, Mexico on 19 May 2003.
