Fuel for Human Action

“Most of the time they’re (‘funders, philanthropists; my add’) only comfortable with change that doesn’t compromise their positions of power.” Edgar Villanueva, “The College Cheating Scheme and the Broken Mirror of Philanthropy.” - Schott Foundation for Public Education.

This is a quote from Edgar Villaneuva’s article that resonates with some publications I have read recently on the idea that those in power, who were part of creating and maintaining, and even increasing the disparities in society, are also proclaiming that they are the ones that can solve this very problem. Anand Giridharadas, in his book “Winners Take All’ states that “All around us, the winners in our highly inequitable status quo declare themselves partisans of change. They know the problem, and they want to be part of the solution. Actually, they want to lead the search for solutions. They believe that their solutions deserve to be at the forefront of social change. They may join or support movements initiated by ordinary people looking to fix aspects of their society. More often, though, these elites start initiatives of their own, taking on social change as though if we are just another stock in their portfolio or corporation to restructure. Because they are in charge of these attempts at social change, the attempts naturally reflect their biases.”

So how do we redirect the power of the funds from people who are the guardians of wealth, to the people who are benefiting from the investments? Villaneuva identifies with a concept that I have used for a while, colonialism, taking in or taking over, a new country, a new area, and how you relate to the recipients and partners that you work with. It’s a crass notion, but in reality, I have sen it often enough as an attitude coming from the top in both raising and doling out funds; rather than seeking out the knowledge on the ground where the experience lies and creating a foundation for those who knows what needs to be done. I have also used the concept of colonialism when outsiders come in to benefit from a society and reaping the wealth without understanding or doing the work. More on that in a later post.

<><>

I wrote this about a year ago, and since then there has been a world of change; Covid-19 and racial upheaval have put all that the charitable sector stands for and the conditions it operate under, on its head. So much of the fuel that has been taken for granted – the emotional engagement and people’s desire to help – has both been under- and overestimated. People’s willingness to give and support others have reach stratospheric levels, while many philanthropic institutions unfortunately have paid lip service to their commitment to step in during difficult times. But there is a change coming. The demand that a higher number of BIPOC be included in nonprofits management is taking off, and that foundations, where the decisions made who will receive funding, are diversify to reflect those who work in and benefit from this industry.

Fueling the change is not only the racial disparities that have come into full view because of COVID-19. With a majority of nonprofits involved in health delivery, they have been stretched thin over the last few months. Congress extended the PPP loans also to nonprofits, but oftentimes, nonprofits lack administrative resources to access such supports.

In a blog in June 2020 and in many since then, NonprofitAF is arguing for making general operations funding the default, and to show where the money goes, in earnest. No for-profit entity would not not invest in its infrastructure or employees; that would be considered bad for business. But this antiquated view is still clearly adhered to by funders.

(I co-wrote an open letter to Mackenzie Scott on her last round of giving)

Instead of getting on the case of small nonprofits, it ot is move overdue to requiring private foundations and trusts to give out at least 10% or more annually, instead of the current minimum of 5%. And, require Donor Advised Funds (DAF), that are hoarding billions while giving their donors immediate tax breaks, to give out at least 25% of their yearly intake. That would be a start in boosting a sector that is in desperate needs.