Can philanthropy create greater racial equity and social justice?

Good question.  And, what would be some benchmarks of progress? These are the two questions we pursued, with support from the Ford Foundation. 

We knew there were no easy criteria of success, no simple measures of equity or justice. And, we learned, it’s hard to have a good conversation about this without touching some sensitive nerves.

To keep our inquiry grounded, we started with the notion of “gaps” or “disparities.” Many studies conducted in the areas of education, or health, or justice show different outcomes, on average, for different racial and ethnic groups.   In brief, our public systems of education, health, or justice do better for Whites, on average. Our private markets for mortgages or business loans or risk protection also favor Whites as a group. These differences between group averages are called disparities or gaps – as in “the achievement gap” or “health disparities.”

Gaps like these are seen in the data and felt in the lives of those on the short end of the gaps in all the arenas of life in which philanthropy is active—education, health, arts, justice, community development, etc. For a variety of reasons, these gaps are widespread, deep, and pervasive. They can have snowballing or cascading effects that run through the generations if not addressed. We present a small inventory of these gaps in an article in our Resource section.

Progress in achieving greater equity would be reflected, ultimately, in shrinking gaps. If philanthropy is well-directed, we reasoned, these gaps should close, indicated more equal outcomes for all groups. But how can philanthropy direct its resources to level those playing fields such that our public and private systems work fairly?   

We spent three years in the field asking these questions in focused conversations with almost 100 different kinds of philanthropic organizations. The essential question: “What does progress look like to you? How do you spell success? What helps it along, and what hinders it?”

Some of these organizations were traditional grantmaking foundations, others were new forms of philanthropy just developing in communities of color, others were “intermediary” organizations using a variety of donors’ funds to make things happen on the ground, and others were nonprofit organizations specialized in community development, or church administration, or civic engagement. They were of different sizes, in different cultural, historical, and political settings. They were working on “different parts of the elephant,” but all had an interest in improving the quality of lives for not-only-White Americans, and were bumping into the realities of the unequal playing field that people of different racial or ethnic groups experience.

So, to answer the question at the top of this section, we say Yes. Philanthropy has and does play a useful role. But it can do much more. Furthermore, if philanthropy wants to be fully effective, it will have to learn how to address issues of equity and justice.   Otherwise, it can produce good outcomes for a shrinking share of its market (Americans of European descent), leaving out a growing share. 

What we learned

When confronted with the realities of gaps or disparities, most people say, “Well, that’s not right; we can fix that.” And indeed we can, because our systems and markets are all made by humans; solutions will be made by humans as well. Ingenuity, creativity, leadership, will, and the wish to do good and do this American thing right are all assets to be brought to the challenges of creating a just and equitable society. 

 What can philanthropy do? Previewing our six “pathways to progress”…