Commentary on Benchmarking Diversity

Philanthropy New York has invited several foundation and nonprofit leaders to share their thoughts on Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofits. We hope that more of our colleagues will contribute their comments after reading our report.

Share your thoughts on Benchmarking Diversity by clicking here. (They will appear on this webpage as well as in the Comments section of Smart Assets, the Philanthropy New York blog.)

 

Foundations

Philanthropic Groups and Nonprofit Leaders

 

Foundations

 

Lori Bezahler, President, Edward W. Hazen Foundation
Philanthropy New York should be congratulated for its longstanding commitment to diversity in our sector. Over the past several years, we have seen increased attention paid to the diversity of foundation staffs and leadership, and to the composition of organizations supported with foundation dollars, but New York foundations, through our regional association, have expressed diversity as a value and have put resources towards increasing inclusivity at our institutions far longer than that.

While I applaud this commitment and believe there is useful information in the report, I find myself wondering whether we have asked the underlying question, diversity for what? We may posit that in and of itself, inclusivity is a good thing, even a democratic and moral value. But is diversity the end game? For the Hazen Foundation, it is not. It may be a necessary step towards our objectives, but ultimately we are seeking equity and justice. Diversity merely requires the presence of people from historically underrepresented groups, but does not connote any level of authority or power. Further, without a deeper analysis, focusing on diversity as the sole indicator of progress allows us to continue to believe that injustice is merely the act of individuals rather than the result of structures, institutions and traditions created, in large part, to support previous assumptions and prejudices about race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc. We will not reverse the impact of our long history of inequity by merely “including diverse voices” unless we are also willing to confront the vast imbalances in power and opportunity. return to top

 

Victor De Luca, President, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
I want philanthropy to be like Nike—Just Do It!

When the Greenlining Institute reported that grants were not made to communities of color and foundation boards and staffs were not very diverse, the nearly unanimous response from our sector was to attack the data and the Institute itself.

Now we have our own research that shows more needs to be done. Foundation boards continue to be majority male and pale. Grantees led by people of color get less grant money compared to their white-led counterparts.

The challenge is to use this research to create change. Are we prepared to commit to action within our own foundations and collectively as a field? I hope so but the jury is still out.

Philanthropy New York must create space for its members to have an adult conversation about the next steps for foundations. Although couched as aspirational, at some point we have to raise the bar.

I suggest that philanthropy voluntarily adopt the National Football League’s Rooney Rule. Established in 2003, this rule requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and upper management positions. In 2003 there were two head coaches of color; now there are six, and upper management is more diverse.

With a similar program, the pools of qualified candidates considered for top jobs at foundations would include more people of color. By opening these doors, opportunities will expand and I believe more people of color will ultimately get hired. It is time to Just Do It! return to top

 

Roger Doughty, Executive Director, Horizons Foundation
Philanthropy New York’s report on diversity paints a rich picture of the city’s foundation and nonprofit landscapes. It will undoubtedly prove highly useful to many.

Philanthropy New York is to be applauded for including the LGBT population and people with disabilities in collecting data about staff and board composition. Their inclusive approach marks a large improvement over research conducted  here in California, where a similar survey had excluded LGBT people on the dubious grounds that there wasn’t time to be inclusive, and that such questions would threaten individual privacy (they don’t so long as people are allowed to self-identify voluntarily).

At the same time, it’s a bit puzzling that the report’s inclusion of LGBT people and issues seems somewhat uneven. For example, the study appears to look at foundation interest in leadership programs for people of color, but not the LGBT community. It asks how many foundations request information from grantees on race and gender composition, but not on LGBT inclusion.

There is no doubt that issues of race occupy an absolutely central place in our field’s—and the nation’s—grappling with diversity. At the same time, if the topic is truly inclusion, then our field’s work, data collection, and language need to be, in fact, more truly inclusive. Philanthropy New York’s report puts us very much on that road. return to top

 

Molly Schultz Hafid, Program Officer, Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock
During my ten years in philanthropy, I have worked with many foundations that have devoted long hours to the question of how much diversity is needed on their own board and who should be in the leadership positions of their grantees. The report suggests what we often surmised—there may be a positive correlation between how diverse a foundation board and executive leadership is and how much the foundation knows about the racial and ethnic composition of their grantees. This raises several important questions: Should the diversity of foundation boards more closely reflect the populations they seek to serve? What data do we need to track the benefits of our grants? How can we best know if the grants made to serve underrepresented communities are actually doing so? I was surprised that only 16 percent of foundations have “specific goals, policies, or guidelines regarding grantmaking that serves people of color.” And, only 25 percent of foundations collect data on the racial and ethnic composition of their grantees. However, when a foundation explicitly names a racial or ethnic group in their mission the rate jumps to 79 percent. Finally, I was dismayed to learn that while 50 percent of the nonprofits target all or most of their programs to benefit populations of color, only 20 percent of the foundations specifically name populations of color as their key constituency. What might we do about this disconnect? return to top

 

Trista Harris, Executive Director, Headwaters Foundation for Justice; chief blogger at New Voices of Philanthropy
I applaud Philanthropy New York for doing the hard work of helping foundations go beyond our assumptions and look at the real data of who is making decisions about foundation giving and at what level. Knowing where our baseline is and where progress still needs to be made is the first step. The next step is for each of us to engage in thoughtful dialogue about how our foundations can be more reflective of the communities that we serve. Diverse board members and diverse staff at all levels of a foundation’s hierarchy improves our ability to see new solutions and broadens our reach into the community. return to top

 

Sharon King, President, F.B. Heron Foundation
Philanthropy New York’s report helps document the diversity that exists in both foundations and nonprofits in New York. It provides a baseline of data for our ongoing dialogue. It also reminds us of the need to continue the struggle for inclusiveness. Diversity is one important aspect of improving our effectiveness as a sector and the report documents that more remains to be done. As a foundation CEO, I urge my colleagues to use this report as an opportunity to recommit ourselves to diversifying philanthropy and our sector. return to top

 

Philanthropic Groups and Nonprofit Leaders

 

Susan Taylor Batten, President, Association of Black Foundation Executives (ABFE)
(Ms. Taylor Batten’s organizational affiliation is included for identification purposes only.)
This data advances the field of research on diversity in philanthropy because of the “side-by-side” analyses of the demographics of New York City, New York’s foundation community, and New York’s nonprofit sector. Philanthropy New York is to be commended—this work will “raise the bar” and influence research in our sector moving forward.

I want to focus on two important and related ideas that come from this data. First, the difference in the way that funders and nonprofits define their focus areas may be more significant than it appears at first glance. It is easy to dismiss the distinction by noting that despite the different lens, funders and nonprofits are still reaching the same people. Yes, funders that focus on economically disadvantaged families are more than likely supporting communities of color, given that people of color in this country are more likely to be poor. However, supporting economically disadvantaged families of color without taking into account the specific reasons why these families are poor (and how their poverty differs from poor white communities) may not be using foundation investments wisely. This is an important discussion to have in the field of philanthropy and extremely important to us at ABFE.

We also need to consider how to ensure that philanthropy is effective in diverse communities. The diversity of people in our foundations is necessary but not sufficient to get us equitable outcomes for all communities. Diversity is not just about “composition” but about the “competency” to work in diverse communities—the kinds of communities that make up New York City. This is the difference between diversity and equity—diversity being much more about a strategy (mix of people/experiences and thought); equity being much more about results (better and more comparable outcomes for all and where race/ethnicity is not a predictor of socio-economic outcomes). We look forward to the work that lies ahead. return to top

 

Rick Cohen, National Correspondent, the Nonprofit Quarterly; editor of the Cohen Report
A couple of important takeaways from this report on diversity and inclusion: 

First, despite some capacity-building grants pointing in this direction, there appears to be a reluctance among funders—and probably most of society—to think about how they support people of color-led organizations. Nonprofits are not simply service providers to their communities, but advocates through which constituencies speak and get heard. The small “p” political role of nonprofits as representatives of and advocates for their communities, if we pay attention to history, means thinking long and hard about supporting POC-led (or even community-led and –governed) organizations, notwithstanding debates as to what exactly constitutes "POC-led." 

Second, as admirable as it is for Philanthropy New York to take this hard look at its members (the majority of which chose not to respond to this important survey), barometers for making judgments beyond a sense of what might be adequate or inadequate diversity and inclusion are necessary. On matters of race and ethnicity, consider the population numbers from the Census Department’s 2007 American Community Survey with the statistics on foundation governance and staffing: in the NY/Northern New Jersey/Long Island metro area, the population is 41.4 percent non-Hispanic white, 19.8 percent non-Hispanic Black or African-American, 10.6 percent Asian, and 26.1 percent Hispanic (plus 2 percent two or more races or other); for New York City alone, 35.1 percent non-Hispanic white, 23.7 percent non-Hispanic Black of African-American, 11.5 percent Asian, and 27.4 percent Hispanic. Compare those numbers to the survey findings on foundation board members and chief executives (both over 80 percent white) and the lack of representativeness of the foundation world to the communities served by organized philanthropy is starkly evident.

If, as the study authors noted about the nonprofit survey responses, there was some element of self-selection going on, one can surmise that the demographics of the foundation respondents are racially/ethnically “better” than the two-thirds of Philanthropy New York member institutions that did not respond. It is important for grantmaker associations such as Philanthropy New York to shine a light on these issues, but the challenge then requires judgments about what to do to change these sector demographics and how to democratize philanthropic governance and leadership. return to top

 

Robert S. Collier, President and CEO, Council of Michigan Foundations
Our thanks to the foundations and nonprofit organizations that participated in this important survey. This collaborative effort creates an important benchmark for philanthropy that we and other regional associations of grantmakers can model in our regions of the country. This data is vital to our collective efforts to demonstrate the relevance and results of philanthropy to policymakers and the public. The leadership of Philanthropy New York in undertaking this effort is greatly appreciated! return to top

 

Aaron Dorfman, Executive Director, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
Benchmarking Diversity is an important addition to ongoing discussions of diversity and inclusion—it deals thoughtfully and responsibly with the subject and presents interesting findings that will surely make positive contributions to our sector.

The biggest shortcoming of the report, however, is the lack of representative data, which Philanthropy New York acknowledges in their preface. For example, there are 9,735 foundations in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, yet the data are drawn from less than one percent of this universe of grantmakers. I suspect, therefore, that the data present an overly-rosy picture of diversity in our community of grantmakers.

And in spite of this, one statistic that caught my attention was that fully 83 percent of foundation board members at the surveyed foundations are white. This is of concern for three reasons: 1) Research has shown that diverse groups are better problem-solvers, so a lack of diversity on foundation boards likely diminishes effectiveness; 2) The study shows a correlation between board diversity and other diversity indicators, so a lack of diversity at the board level may contribute to a lack of diversity in other foundation practices; and 3) What does it say about inclusion, privilege, and fairness when non-whites are so underrepresented in the most powerful positions?

Benchmarking Diversity reinforces my belief that diversifying board composition should be a top priority for our sector. return to top

 

Virginia M. Esposito, President, National Center for Family Philanthropy
Philanthropy New York is to be congratulated for having shared credible and thought-provoking research on diversity in philanthropy with New Yorkers and all of philanthropy. Too often, our discussions on diversity are framed by conjecture and hyperbole. Such solid, rich research offers everyone who cares about effective philanthropy an enlightened, factual, and timely look at the range of diversity issues. Rather than drawing conclusions for us, they have inspired all of us to have discussions as to the impact of these statistics for our own organizations and our field. return to top

 

Angelo Falcón, President, National Institute for Latino Policy (NiLP)
Philanthropy New York, the Foundation Center, and Diversity in Philanthropy certainly need to be commended for simply uttering the word “race” in this report and tackling the issue of diversity. The report itself, however, was perhaps prematurely released as a full-fledged study. With all the problems with tiny sample sizes and other qualifications made throughout it, it should have probably been released as a preliminary discussion paper. The very professionally packaged report might be providing the casual reader with inaccurate information that they might try to generalize for both the city’s foundation and nonprofit sectors.

Extremely small sample sizes and bias present very serious problems for this study. While the response rate for the 95 of Philanthropy New York’s membership that responded was 33 percent, this foundation sample size was only 1.4 percent of the total 7,000 New York foundations that the study estimates. The same with the nonprofit sample of 540, which represented only 10 percent of the nonprofits approached. In terms of the nonprofit sector, it was not clear if large nonprofits like hospitals and universities were included. These issues, despite the authors’ valiant attempts to minimize their importance, render this more of a pilot study than even a preliminary analysis of the many important topics it attempts to address. It should, therefore, be read with great caution.

These problems of sample size and self-selection create the serious problem, as the authors admit, of overstating the degree of diversity in both sectors. The foundation sample is disproportionately made up of the larger foundations and may be made up of those proudest of their diversity records. The nonprofit sample—well, it is hard to describe the many ways it is likely skewed with a disproportionate number that are already foundation-friendly or that may exaggerate their “minority” status as a fundraising strategy.

The report also suffers from reporting on various social categories inconsistently. I was reading it specifically interested in the Latino community, but found the level of generalization a bit confusing. Sometimes reference would be made to Hispanics, other times to people of color or just to nonprofits in general under various topics.

With 65 percent of the city’s population being people of color, and the poverty population being a much higher percentage (over 80 percent of the kids in public schools are people of color), it is not clear what this means in terms of diversity when a foundation targets the “economically disadvantaged” or “children and youth”. The report doesn’t seem to grapple with the fact that New York City is a racial-ethnic minority city and the implications of this for discussions of diversity. The report’s expansive notion of “minorities” adds a level of complexity to the analysis that requires much greater exposition. 

The report’s attempt to discover some causality in its findings is also problematic and at times contradictory. For example, while at one point they suggest a positive relationship between foundations that have written diversity policies and the level of diversity in those foundations (page 8), they question this relationship later on (page 10).

This issue of causality goes to the report’s discussion of the capacity-building needs of nonprofits. Is this the result of lack of skills and connections to wealthy networks, or the historic undercapitalization of nonprofits of color by foundations, governments, and others? This is a topic that will require much more discussion.

The report reveals a confusing picture of how New York City foundations, as a sector, address the issue of race in their grantmaking, staffing, and governance. The low levels and hodgepodge of reporting of diversity data by these foundations seems to make the case for greater government regulation, but that’s a whole other discussion. The report makes it clear, however, that, as the Reverend Al Sharpton is fond of observing, it seems that the higher you climb the mountain, the whiter it gets. I guess it’s important to establish that fact from time to time, but I am sure it is not much of a surprise to many of us. The question is, what do we do about it?

Benchmarking Diversity is a good beginning to designing a more definitive study or, more likely, series of action-studies on the issue of diversity in the city’s foundation sector. It makes it clear that much work remains to be done. return to top

 

Steve Gunderson, President and CEO, Council on Foundations
Philanthropy represents both the passion of our hearts and the strategic work of our heads. If we are truly committed to expanding diversity and inclusion within our sector and our sector’s work, we must recognize the importance of both.

The growing interest and need in the field of philanthropy for sound data and current research on the policies, practices, and compositions of the staffs and boards of grantmaking institutions cannot be overestimated. Other industries including business and government have relied on good data for decades to aid in their decision making and planning.

Taking the bold early steps to identify the appropriate metrics is a complex process involving many stakeholders. Philanthropy New York engaged in such a process. The decision of its members to begin this important process by issuing an inaugural report that takes not only an external look at the grantee community, but also includes inward reflection about the board and staff compositions, polices, and practices of its member institutions is to be commended.

While data is important, it often portends just one side of the story. It is important to note that any review of and reaction to the data include contextual dialogue and not be used as a rush to judgment. We applaud Philanthropy New York’s actions as a both important and necessary way to become learning-centered and to equip its members with data that can help them to have an even greater impact in society. return to top

 

Cao K. O, Executive Director, Asian American Federation of New York
On behalf of the Asian American Federation, I commend Philanthropy New York for commissioning this important study. This report provides balanced, thorough, and informative baseline data on diversity in foundations and nonprofit organizations in New York. On foundation diversity, the report findings shed light on the progress that the sector has made as well as areas where improvements are clearly needed. On nonprofit diversity, the findings not only help bridge the existing knowledge gap but also illuminate certain challenges that foundations have experienced but perhaps not quite surely or comfortably addressed with respect to diversity in grantmaking.

Several gaps in this report could be further researched. The survey did not gather insights concerning experiences gained and lessons learned among foundations that have made concerted efforts to increase diversity internally, and how those foundations have substantively valued diversity beyond demographic representation. Another gap is the lack of analysis of grant data, which limits understanding of the extent of which equity and inclusiveness are reflected in grantmaking outcomes. Also, foundations’ perspectives on funding small organizations have not been explored, which seem to be relevant to the issue of diversity. As the study shows, “minority-led” organizations tend to be smaller than non-minority-led organizations, and foundation support varies by size of organization and does not vary significantly between minority-led and non-minority-led organizations with budgets of less than $1 million. 

Benchmarking Diversity has laid a good foundation for constructive dialogue and further research to advance the field of philanthropy. return to top

 

Henry A.J. Ramos, Principal, Mauer Kunst Consulting; Director/Lead Consultant, Diversity in Philanthropy Project
Philanthropy New York and The Foundation Center should be highly commended for their recent collaborative efforts to conduct regional research on multicultural diversity issues affecting private grantmaking organizations and the nonprofits they fund in and around New York City. This groundbreaking research—unprecedented in its scope and methodological integrity—is destined to help make organized philanthropy in the New York area both more informed and more responsive on the issues. At the same time, on a larger level, the report is also likely to positively encourage similar studies in other regions of the nation that have yet to anchor their efforts to increase social investment responsiveness in scientific research and performance assessment. By institutionalizing this work and inspiring comparable efforts in other important areas of the nation, Philanthropy New York and The Foundation Center have helped to set the stage for the long-overdue development of a dependable national tracking system for analyzing and comparing philanthropic progress on diversity issues over time and across time zones. This is an epic contribution to our field’s capacity and need to achieve greater traction on the issues in ways that broaden social investment benefits and impacts for all. return to top