Foundations Facilitate Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion
FoundationsFacilitateDiversity, Equity,and Inclusion:PARTNERINGWITH COMMUNITYAND NONPROFITSA research study prepared for the D5 CoalitionGerri Spilka, Vivian Figueredo, Georgia KioukisOMG Center for Collaborative LearningD5 COALITION1
CONTENTSIntroductionFindingsEight Cross-Cutting Characteristics51420 Deep grounding in and respect for local context Mission that explicitly or implicitly values DEI Strategy that targets structural issues Selecting nonprofit partners whose missions align Engaging nonprofits as partners Building nonprofit partners’ capacity to engage their communities Convening nonprofit partners to discuss DEI Using evaluation as a learning toolLessons for the FieldWorks CitedAppendix424546OMG’s mission is to create thriving communities for all people through smarter collective decision-making.Since our establishment in 1988, OMG has provided innovative, high impact solutions through evaluationand learning by blending new business and collaborative practice insights with the context of on-the-groundrealities. Located in Philadelphia, our diverse professional team works with philanthropy, nonprofits andgovernment across the US. www.omgcenter.org2FOUNDATIONS FACILITATE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION: PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY AND NONPROFITS
Foundations FacilitateDiversity, Equity, and Inclusion:PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY AND NONPROFITSA research study prepared for the D5 CoalitionGerri Spilka, Vivian Figueredo, Georgia KioukisOMG Center for Collaborative LearningD5 COALITION3
More than a dozen organizations with connections to thousands ofgrantmakers came together to found the D5 Coalition to advance diversity,equity, and inclusion in philanthropy. Since then, the coalition has grown andcontinues to grow. For a complete list of allies and partners, please see theD5 website: www.d5coalition.org. The founding coalition included:Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in PhilanthropyAssociated Grant MakersAssociation of Black Foundation ExecutivesCouncil of Michigan FoundationsCouncil on FoundationsDonors ForumFoundation CenterFunders for LGBTQ IssuesRockefeller Philanthropy Advisorsserves as D5’s program office.Hispanics in PhilanthropyHorizons FoundationJoint Affinity GroupsMinnesota Council on FoundationsNative Americans in PhilanthropyPhilanthropy New YorkPhilanthropy NorthwestPhilanthropy OhioRockefeller Philanthropy AdvisorsWomen’s Funding NetworkJudi PowellProgram Coordination ConsultantsD5 thanks its funders, supporters, andcolleagues. Opinions and conclusionspresented in this report reflect those of theauthors and not necessarily D5’s funders,supporters, and colleagues.4Kelly BrownDirectorHafizah OmarAdministrative AssistantMeghan McVetyCo-ChairsStephen B. Heintz, Rockefeller Brothers FundDr. Robert K. Ross, The California EndowmentLuz Vega-Marquis, Marguerite Casey FoundationFunders & AdvisorsAnnie E. Casey FoundationThe California EndowmentDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationEvelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. FundJessie Smith Noyes FoundationLloyd A. Fry FoundationMarguerite Casey FoundationThe Prudential FoundationRockefeller Brothers FundThe Rockefeller FoundationRobert Wood Johnson FoundationRosenberg FoundationW.K. Kellogg FoundationD5 Leadership TeamMaricela Espinoza-Garcia, AriGoio CommunicationsCarly Hare, Native Americans in PhilanthropyMae Hong, Rockefeller Philanthropy AdvisorsMichael Litz, Forum of Regional Associationsof GrantmakersLawrence McGill, Foundation CenterKristopher Smith, Funders’ Network for Smart Growthand Livable CommunitiesSylvia Zaldivar-Sykes, Maestro Cares FoundationEricka Plater-Turner, Council on FoundationsFOUNDATIONS FACILITATE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION: PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY AND NONPROFITS
INTRODUCTIONTHIS RESEARCH STUDY, COMMISSIONED OF THE OMG CENTER FORCOLLABORATIVE LEARNING (OMG) BY THE D5 COALITION (D5) IN2012, INVESTIGATES THE SYSTEMIC FACTORS IN THE PHILANTHROPICSECTOR THAT FACILITATE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION (DEI)IN GRANT-MAKING AND NONPROFIT PRACTICE. IN SPRING 2013, OMGCONDUCTED A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF NINE FOUNDATIONS THROUGHIN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH EXECUTIVES, PROGRAM OFFICERS, ANDNONPROFIT PARTNERS.** See Methodology section fordescriptions of the nine foundationsand for more details on thefoundation selection process.D5 COALITION5
IntroductionOVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGSThe study confirmed that foundations can, infact, facilitate DEI with their nonprofit partners, aswell as among peer foundations and their nonprofitpartners, through their grant-making practices.An analysis of these exemplar foundationsrevealed eight areas through which foundationpractices can advance DEI:1) B y cultivating a deep understanding of the localcontexts in which they invest.2) B y ensuring that their missions reflect the valueof DEI, and that their leaders are strongly drivenby the mission.3) B y targeting, through their strategy, thestructural issues that limit opportunities forpeople in underserved communities, andby bolstering the capacity of grassrootsorganizations that serve those communities.4) B y selecting nonprofit partners whose missionsalign with their values of DEI.5) B y engaging nonprofits as partners, and forginglong-term relationships with them.6) B y building nonprofit partners’ capacity toauthentically engage their communities.7) By convening nonprofit partners to discuss DEI,and by encouraging authentic collaborationamong nonprofit partners to tackle thestructural issues that affect communities.8) B y using evaluation as a learning tool toimprove their own—and their nonprofitpartners’—practice of DEI.In this report, we delve into these eight areas ofpractice, providing insights and recommendationsfrom the philanthropic and nonprofit practitionersinterviewed—in their own words. The reportunderscores the lessons for philanthropies onhow to better partner with nonprofits to increase6the amount and quality of social interventions toaddress disparities of opportunity for diverse andunderserved populations. As such, they are DEIfacilitators. While the best practices that surfacedin this study relate primarily to race and ethnicity,they may prove useful to funders concerned withother dimensions of diversity, such as differentialability, gender, and sexual orientation, which reflectthe parameters of D5’s work.BACKGROUND AND RATIONALEAmerica is growing more diverse, with AfricanAmericans and Latinos its fastest growingpopulations. By 2042, people of color will be themajority. Women now occupy more leadershippositions than ever. And, as Americans becomemore aware of and responsive to inequities,lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people, andpeople with disabilities play central roles in society.Yet, philanthropy has not kept pace. Accordingto the D5 Coalition’s 2013 State of the Work, alittle over a third of program officers and about 10percent of foundation CEOs and board membersare people of color. Native Americans and AsianPacific Islanders are severely under-representedon foundation boards and staff; women remainunder-represented on Boards or as Trustees;and, little data exists on lesbian, gay, bisexual,and transgender representation, and data aboutpeople of color is incomplete.Philanthropy has not been particularly successfulat targeting its resources to the communities andpopulations that need them most. For example, a2004 study by Pitz & Sen for the Applied ResearchCenter, a racial justice think tank now known as RaceForward, found that grants aimed at communitiesof color averaged only between nine and tenpercent of all foundation funding in the 1990s. A2009 Foundation Center study of New York Cityfoundations found that only 16 percent had goals,guidelines, and practices regarding grant-makingto organizations serving people of color.FOUNDATIONS FACILITATE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION: PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY AND NONPROFITS
STUDY FRAMEWORKThis research study investigates the systemicfactors in the philanthropic sector that facilitateDEI in grant-making and nonprofit practice. For adiscussion about the definitions of and distinctionsbetween diversity, equity, and inclusion, seethe report, Analysis of Policies, Practices, andPrograms for Advancing Diversity, Equity, andInclusion, published by D5 in 2013. This reportpresents examples that illustrate the differencesbetween the concepts, and the importance ofdistinguishing approaches that relate to each.As a result of these demographic changes andgaps, in 2010, a group of concerned leaders inphilanthropy formed the D5 Coalition, a five-yeareffort to grow diversity, equity, and inclusionin philanthropy. D5 believes that a foundationis more effective when its staff reflects the lifeexperience of a diverse America. It envisions aphilanthropic sector in which foundations draw onthe power of diverse staffs and boards to achievelasting impact, forge genuine partnerships withdiverse communities, and increase access toopportunities and resources for all people. Amongthe strategies to pursue this vision, D5 plans toenrich the field with quality data and research onDEI issues in philanthropy.FIGURE 1Systems thinking, which Peter Senge (1990)described as “a discipline for seeing wholes,” isbased on the theory that the component parts ofa system can be best understood in the context oftheir interrelationships, rather than in fragmentsand isolation. Systems thinking requires that,to fully understand why a problem occurs, it isimportant to examine the linkages and interactionsbetween the various elements of a system.In the philanthropic sector, interactionsbetween foundations and nonprofit organizationsform the backbone of the system (Figure 1).System Interactions between Foundations and Nonprofits11. Technical Assistance refers to the provision of advice, assistance, and training to perform work more effectively.D5 COALITION7IntroductionThese studies, among others that explore grantmaking to various demographic populations,suggest that funding is not being targetedeffectively to diverse communities and has notchanged much over the years. However, it shouldbe noted that in the absence of a standardizedapproach to collecting and sharing demographicdata on grants, the conclusions that can be drawnfrom existing data are severely limited.
IntroductionWhile foundations and nonprofits function asindependent organizations with distinct leadershipand staffing structures, missions, strategies, andareas of focus, it is through their interactions thatboth sectors advance their social change agenda.Foundations interact with and influence theirnonprofit partners through grant-makingactivities, which include: developing RFPs,reviewing reports, sharing knowledge, providingtechnical assistance, evaluating programs andinitiatives, and communicating with nonprofitpartners. Nonprofit organizations, because oftheir understanding of what it takes to makechange happen, can influence foundationpractice by serving as the sector’s “eyes andears” on-the-ground. The most direct channelfor this influence is through activities associatedwith accessing foundation grants: developingproposals and reports, participating in evaluationactivities, communicating with program officersregarding on-the-ground practice, and engaging inknowledge-sharing convenings.While all elements in a system naturally influenceeach other, asymmetric power relations betweenfoundations and nonprofits prevail in thephilanthropic sector. Peter Frumkin discussesFIGURE 2The Prevailing Framework of thePhilanthropic SectorSource of imbalance:Foundations hold reward power and representdominant worldview8this dynamic in “Accountability and Legitimacyin American Foundation Philanthropy,” as do EllieButeau and Phil Buchanan in Working Well withGrantees: A Guide for Foundation Program Staff.Foundations’ control over financial and knowledgeresources affords them great power over nonprofitorganizations, with nonprofits sometimeshaving to adjust their own mission and goals toaccommodate foundations’ grant requirements.Power, simply, is the ability to influence thebehavior of others. While all parties in a systemhave some power, the balance of power betweenthem can be more or less equally distributed.In the case of the philanthropic sector, becausefoundations wield what social psychologists JohnFrench and Bertram Raven commonly refer to as“reward power,” the reality is that their influenceover nonprofit partners is almost exclusively onedirectional (Figure 2). Reward power is the abilityof the power wielder to confer valued materialrewards on others. In the philanthropic sector,foundations award the money that allows nonprofitsto stay in business, a weighty source of influence.This asymmetry may be problematic in the contextof DEI in the sector. According to authors RebeccaStone and Benjamin Butler, in Core Issues inComprehensive Community-Building Initiatives:Exploring Power and Race and in StructuralRacism and Community Building, foundationsmay unwittingly perpetuate a dominant worldview,one that is highly racialized and often dictatedby white European culture. In an organizationalenvironment governed by the dominant worldview,individuals are prone to making decisions from anethnocentric vantage point. According to Dr. MiltonBennett’s Developmental Model of InterculturalSensitivity (DMIS) Scale—a framework that hasbeen used for more than 20 years in interculturaleducation and training curricula—there aresix stages of increasing sensitivity to culturaldifferences, falling under two broad categories:“ethnocentric” or “ethno-relative” (Figure 3).Under an ethnocentric view, individuals see theirown culture as central to reality. Moving up thescale, individuals develop an increasingly ethno-FOUNDATIONS FACILITATE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION: PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY AND NONPROFITS
IntroductionFIGURE 3The Continuum or Developmental Model of Intercultural here is littleor no noticeof othercultures.Assumptionthat one’sown culturalexperience isthe only onethat’s real.Assumptionthat one’sculturalexperienceis superior tothat of others.Trivialization orromanticizationof othercultures.Assumptionthat there areno realdifferencesacross cultures.relative point of view, experiencing their ownculture in the context of other cultures.Functioning unintentionally under an ethnocentricworldview, foundations may inadvertently applytheir own cultural lens in defining the needs ofcommunities and populations, and in researchingand offering solutions to these needs, or they mayassume that there are no real differences acrosscommunities.On the other hand, the foundations in this studyfunction under an ethno-relative worldview,whether inherently or by conscious effort. Theyformulate implicit and explicit strategies toequalize the balance of power with their nonprofitpartners. They actively support their nonprofitpartners in achieving a balance of power betweenthemselves and the communities and populationsthey serve. This framework is characterized byCharacterizedby curiosityand respectfor othercultures.Characterizedby an attemptto see theworld throughthe lens ofdifferentcultures, andto change one’sbehavior andvalues to adaptto others’culturalsensitivities.Characterizedby the abilityto moveeasily acrossdifferentculturalworldviews.a balance of power between foundations andnonprofit partners, and is influenced strongly bythe communities and populations that are servedby the system (Figure 4).While the degree to which foundationsshare power with nonprofit partners fallson a continuum, this study supports thenotion that the more balanced the powerbetween foundations and nonprofits, themore foundations and nonprofit partnerscan act as partners, rather than benefactor/beneficiary. And, when this balancedrelationship is achieved, the system ismore conducive to DEI in practice. Thisstudy indicates that foundations that aremore apt to share power, also operate inan ethno-relative worldview.D5 COALITION9
IntroductionFIGURE 4An Alternative Framework of the Philanthropic SectorSource of imbalance:Foundations develop appreciation oflocal communities and populations;share power with nonprofit partners;engage nonprofits as partners.METHODOLOGYFoundation SelectionTo identify exemplar foundations for this study,OMG reached out to philanthropic and nonprofitleaders for recommendations, and consultedreports that featured culturally- and raciallyresponsive foundations. OMG reviewed reportsfrom organizations including JustPartners,Inc., Foundation Center, Greenlining Institute,Council on Foundations, National Committeefor Responsive Philanthropy, Applied ResearchCenter, Philanthropy’s Promise, and theConvergence Partnership.From a list of more than 150 foundations—anencouraging number signifying a sizable groupof foundations, large and small, actively engagedin work to advance DEI—we narrowed the samplebased on how frequently the foundation wascited. At the request of D5, OMG did not selectthose foundations most often cited, includingThe California Endowment, the W.K. KelloggFoundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,and the Ford Foundation, among many others.Instead, OMG looked for a sample of community,independent, and family foundations lessfrequently explored by researchers. In addition,because foundations involved in social justicegrant-making—defined in the 2005 Foundation10Center report Social Justice Grantmaking as“philanthropic contributions to nonprofitorganizations that work for structural change inorder to increase opportunity of those who arethe least well off politically, economically, andsocially”—are typically attuned to values of DEI,it can be difficult to tease out a specific DEI focusfrom the much broader social justice focus. Forthis reason, OMG purposefully sought outfoundations funding not only issues typicallyassociated with social justice grantmaking, likecommunity development and civil rights, but alsothose funding issues less obviously related, likethe environment.Finally, OMG selected the nine foundations(Table 1) to include in this study after reviewing thefoundations’ giving practices and their missions/values statements, aiming for a variety of foundationtypes and sizes serving diverse communitiesthroughout the United States (Figure 5).While many foundations doing exemplary DEI workwere left out in favor of a smaller sample size, thetradeoff was necessary to allow us to deeply delveinto each of the examples. OMG believes thatthe practices and lessons that these foundationsshared will be of interest and value to the field.FOUNDATIONS FACILITATE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION: PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY AND NONPROFITS
IntroductionTABLE 1“Exemplar” Study FoundationsFOUNDATION2MISSIONBrett Family FoundationBoulder, COIndependent Foundation - 2000Total Assets: 7,826,227Total Giving: 420,600www.brettfoundation.orgThe Brett Family Foundation supports caring communities by investing inorganizations throughout Colorado working for social justice, and BoulderCounty nonprofits addressing the needs of underserved communities, primarilydisadvantaged youth and their families.Con Alma Health FoundationSanta Fe, NMIndependent Foundation - 2001Total Assets: 23,156,523Total Giving: 526,738www.conalma.orgCon Alma Health Foundation is organized to be aware of and respond to thehealth rights and needs of the culturally and demographically diverse peoples andcommunities of New Mexico.Foundation for the Mid SouthJackson, MSCommunity Foundation - 1990Total Assets: 17,444,093Total Giving: 1,459,260www.fndmidsouth.orgThe mission of the Foundation for the Mid South is to invest in people and strategiesthat build philanthropy and promote racial, social, and economic equity in Arkansas,Louisiana, and Mississippi.Incarnate Word FoundationSt. Louis, MOPublic Charity - 1997Total Assets: 26,722,128Total Giving: 1,083,380www.iwfdn.orgThe Incarnate Word F
between diversity, equity, and inclusion, see the report, Analysis of Policies, Practices, and Programs for Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, published by D5 in 2013. This report presents examples that illustrate the differences between the concepts, and the importance of distinguishing approaches that relate to each.
AFMC Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) Training 2 2 Diversity in BusinessDiversity in Business 3 Minutes 3 The Importance of Diversity The Importance of Diversity3 Minutes 4 The Power of Diversity 4 Minutes The Power of Diversity 5 The Threat of Diversity 2 Minutes The Threat of Diversity 6 Diverse Teams Deliver Results 1 Minute Diverse Teams Deliver Results
tion diversity. Alpha diversity Dα measures the average per-particle diversity in the population, beta diversity Dβ mea-sures the inter-particle diversity, and gamma diversity Dγ measures the bulk population diversity. The bulk population diversity (Dγ) is the product of diversity on the per-particle
diversity of the other strata. Beta (β) Diversity: β diversity is the inter community diversity expressing the rate of species turnover per unit change in habitat. Gamma (γ) Diversity : Gamma diversity is the overall diversity at landscape level includes both α and β diversities. The relationship is as follows: γ
UW Strategic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan Development In developing the University of Wyoming Strategic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan, UW historical documents related to diversity, equity, and inclusion were reviewed tha
Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns Returns Ranked in Order of Performance (as of June 30, 2019) Equity Cap Large-9.11% Equity Cap Large-11.89% Equity Cap Large-22.10% Equity Cap Large 28.68% Equity Cap Large 10.88% Equity Cap Large 4.91% Equity Cap Large 15.79% Equity Cap Large
AAPL UW Equity APPLE 情報技術 MSFT UW Equity MICROSOFT CORP 情報技術 AMZN UW Equity AMAZON.COM 一般消費財・サービス GOOGL UW Equity ALPHABET A コミュニケーション・サービス TSLA UW Equity TESLA 一般消費財・サービス GOOG UW Equity ALPHABET C コミュニケーション・サービス
local diversity (alpha diversity) and the complement of species composition among sites within the region (beta diversity), and how these diversities contribute to regional diversity (gamma diversity) [35, 37]. The influence of alpha and beta diversities on gamma diversity is an essential aspect of local and landscape level conservation plans [38].
2019 Architectural Standards Page 5 of 11 The collection areas must be accessible to disabled persons while convenient to tenants and service vehicles. Place dumpsters on concrete slabs with concrete approach aprons at least 10’-0” in depth. J. Signage and Fixtures: Building signage must meet the requirements of local 911 service providers. Illuminate the .
