Equity & Inclusion in Grantmaking

December 03, 2021
Senior Wealth Planner and Director of Philanthropic Advisory, Kerri Mast, recently spoke with Dr. Tyrone McKinley Freeman about his research on Madame CJ Walker, America’s first self-made woman millionaire. They explore her approach to charitable giving, activism, social service provisions, and how we might better foster equity and inclusion in grantmaking.

Dr. Tyrone McKinley Freeman is an award-winning scholar and teacher, who serves as an assistant professor of philanthropic studies and director of undergraduate programs at Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Among other things, his research focuses on the history of African American philanthropy and philanthropy in communities of people of color (POC). In 2020, he published a book, “Madam C.J. Walker’s Gospel of Giving: Black Women’s Philanthropy During Jim Crow,” which examines African American women’s history of charitable giving, activism, education and social service provisions through the life and example of Madam C.J. Walker. We recently spoke with Dr. Freeman about his research and how we can foster equity and inclusion in grantmaking.

In your writing, you note that there are common notions about the role of POC in philanthropy and challenge these. For example, you note that it is common to perceive POC as receivers of philanthropy, not as philanthropists themselves. Talk about this notion and why we might reframe the way we think about it.

Oftentimes, POC are perceived as receivers of philanthropy, rather than philanthropists themselves. This misconception stems from the history of race in the U.S. and the perceptions that have evolved over time, but it does not define reality. The rhetoric around philanthropy often is driven by the elite model of philanthropy – those with significant wealth often establish philanthropic vehicles, such as foundations and donor-advised funds (DAFs). This is a narrow definition of philanthropy.

Consider well-known industrialists who created philanthropic structures to benefit minority neighborhoods, which may have created an image that minority communities need to be fixed. However, that is just one perspective that does not show the dynamics of what’s going on in that community. It is important to honor the history, traditions and ways of being within these communities.

One goal of the book was to demonstrate the richness of the philanthropic tradition within the African American community. This is something that these communities have done from the beginning. Traditions of giving traveled across the Atlantic as a part of the slave trade and ended up on Southern plantations as enslaved people tried to build community. Even after the end of slavery, African American communities were historically underserved and, as a result, created their own social service organizations, which were funded within their own community. It was a way of expressing their own dignity and their own humanity in a world that constantly denied that they had such.

You’ve also challenged the notion that philanthropists of color often are referred to as “new and emerging.” While this label is intended to recognize the generosity and impact of people who are underrecognized, it may not reflect reality. Tell us more about that.

That language simply isn’t correct. The only place where they are new and emerging is to organizations that have been ignoring or not engaging them. They’ve been doing this from the beginning. If you examine the rich landscape of African American philanthropy today, you realize it’s everywhere. In philanthropy, we’re trying to come together to do something positive for the community, and that needs to extend to see communities of color as philanthropic agents who are actively doing things in their communities and who have organizations and initiatives that would benefit from more funding and partnerships. Again, you have to come into that respecting and understanding them on their own terms, rather than through these cloudy lenses that are more about stereotypes or lack of understanding.

You’ve spent a lot of time studying Madam C.J. Walker. Take us through the broad outline of who she was and why her philanthropy story is as important as her entrepreneurial story?

Madam C.J. Walker was born in 1867 on a cotton plantation in Louisiana as a freeborn child to former slaves. Living in the Jim Crow era, she was orphaned by age 7 and began working as a washer woman. She was married, had a child and became a widow all before the age of 20. She moved to St. Louis, where she was welcomed by the local Black community, particularly the church that help meet her needs as a widowed mother. After having what she believed to be a divine dream, she formulated her own beauty care products and started selling them door to door, which was the first step toward her beauty empire. She moved to Indianapolis in 1910, established the headquarters of the company, formerly incorporated it and the legend and history kind of took off from there.

There was a lot of attention on Walker’s entrepreneurship and the fact that she was the first self-made female millionaire in America. But what wasn’t well-known was the fact that she was very generous. I wanted to tell that part of the story. Her philanthropy began when she was a poor, orphaned widow and mother and grew over time, suggesting that philanthropy does not come from wealth, but from generosity and a sense of responsibility to your community. Wealth just becomes an accelerator. In other models of philanthropy, people may accumulate large sums of wealth first and then give back.1

“We often develop a short list of people we are comfortable working with and keep focusing there. This is a moment where we need to question those practices and ask, “How accessible are we?”

You have talked about how Walker’s giving was proximate to the issue, which we hear a lot about today. How did she accomplish that?

It comes from her identity and experience as a Black woman. Every gift that she gave was one that she needed herself. She knew the importance of education because she had been denied one, and she knew the importance of social services because she was that struggling, orphaned, widowed single mother who needed care for her daughter. These are the kinds of organizations that she was invested in.

For those of us looking to get proximate to an issue, how can we engage in these conversations and be effective at involving those with firsthand experience?

It’s important that whenever we are engaging in issues that we’re not as close to or that we’ve not had experience with, that we consider hearing from all stakeholders and amplifying the voices of those with firsthand experience. That’s a vital source of information. Speak with community leaders, other donors and nonprofits addressing the issue, and move out of your comfort zone to build community and open conversations with different people. It’s also important to acknowledge your blind spots when engaging with community members affected by the issue and maintain an open mind. Demonstrate care and curiosity when joining conversations with people whose identities differ from yours.

Let’s shift gears and talk about the funding side. A recent study by Bridgespan found that nonprofits led by POC receive less grant funding than their white-led counterparts, and when they do receive funding, there may be more strings attached. How can we address this funding discrepancy among organizations?

To address this differential, funders should consider expanding their network to make new connections and inviting others into their circles. It’s about engaging in larger conversations. Philanthropy has developed a reputation that it’s about who you know. We need to consider how this practice may have excluded others and ask, “How do we invite more people to the table?” Then, take a step beyond that and ask, “What are the dynamics of our table?” You may need to rethink the way that you operate or communicate on issues.

We often develop a short list of people we are comfortable working with and keep focusing there. This is a moment where we need to question those practices and ask, “How accessible are we? What should the beginning of a relationship look like for the organizations we’re interested in funding, and how do we make it more equitable?” It’s about rethinking how we have historically done business.

Many of our clients have family foundations or donor-advised funds. How might they think about being more inclusive?

It goes back to opening up and being part of different networks than we’re used to. We tend to move in the same circles with similar people. We need to get out of that cycle. It starts with moving into other organizations where you can interact with different people and gain insights on issues you’ve made commitments to in order to ensure you are having the right impact. You may also consider developing a diverse advisory board that includes individuals in the communities you seek to serve. We can get a long way just by pausing at those moments that may typically cause us to go back into our comfort zone and instead moving forward by asking a different question or looking at the situation with a different angle.

In philanthropy, because the grantmaker provides funding that charities need, there may be a power differential between the grantmaker and the grant recipient. Talk about this power differential – how does it affect diversity and inclusion, and how might we think about rebalancing that power differential?

This environment has been created where there is almost a sense of desperation in some cases of having to jump through hoops to prove yourself worthy enough to be given to. We need to recognize that. We also need to think about our processes and the strings that come with a grant. We touched on this earlier, but once a grant is given, there can be certain expectations that are more demanding and don’t have anything to do with the mission. It comes back to questioning how we’ve done business to this point.

To turn this dynamic on its head, consider a partnership mentality between the grantmaker and the organization, which suggests a better appreciation for the local community and recognition that the nonprofit brings a different perspective. There’s a philosopher, Martin Marty, who has said that we shouldn’t think about people as recipients, but as receivers, because the idea is that they have an important role to play in this process. I tell this to my students who might be on scholarship all the time. At the end of the day, the scholarship has provided access. The real magic comes with what you do with that access. You have make something of it. This is where the donor and the receiver come together. It’s those who take the gift and do the transformative work of change that need more recognition.

Site visits can serve as an equalizer – for example, something as simple as going to the nonprofit’s location for meetings. This helps with due diligence, but also signals to the organization’s leadership that you value their time. With site visits, there’s still a lot of nervousness and anxiety about making sure everything is organized and prepared. Funders can put people at ease by how they relate to and communicate with their partners. Think about the tone in which you ask questions and be intentional about letting them know you don’t need the red carpet laid out.

To what extent is the current national environment and the conversation around race driving the conversation on diversity and inclusion in grantmaking?

The increased media coverage relating to racial injustice has illuminated the need for continued improvement. It is important for grantmakers and nonprofits who are interested in lasting change to maintain their focus on diversity and inclusion. People have been talking about this for decades, but we are at a point where more people are open to listening and to change. The question is what we do over the long term. Statements are a starting point, but what’s next? We’ve been here before. We see what happens when it’s out of the media, and other things become top of mind, so the question is how we sustain this. This time, we don’t want it to be the trend. We want it to be real and lasting. This is why these conversations about rethinking our board structures and about how we do grants are so important because that’s how the change can happen. We need to ask ourselves, “How do I make sure this new awakening doesn’t go away, even if the news cycle changes?”

Dr. Freeman, thank you so much for this engaging conversation.

Up Next
Up Next

Five Questions with JoAnn Hanson

In Five Questions, we speak with JoAnn Hanson, President of the Church Investment Group, about the organization’s interest in sustainable investing as well as her lessons for young people.

1 For more on the philanthropy of Madam C.J. Walker, read our article, “What Can We Learn from the Philanthropy of Madam C.J. Walker?”

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”) may be used as a generic term to reference the company as a whole and/or its various subsidiaries generally. This material and any products or services may be issued or provided in multiple jurisdictions by duly authorized and regulated subsidiaries. This material is for general information and reference purposes only. This material may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted, or any of the content disclosed to third parties, without the permission of BBH. All trademarks and service marks included are the property of BBH or their respective owners. © Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 2021. All rights reserved. PB-04894-2021-10-29

As of June 15, 2022 Internet Explorer 11 is not supported by BBH.com.

Important Information for Non-U.S. Residents

You are required to read the following important information, which, in conjunction with the Terms and Conditions, governs your use of this website. Your use of this website and its contents constitute your acceptance of this information and those Terms and Conditions. If you do not agree with this information and the Terms and Conditions, you should immediately cease use of this website. The contents of this website have not been prepared for the benefit of investors outside of the United States. This website is not intended as a solicitation of the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument or any investment management services for any investor who resides in a jurisdiction other than the United States1. As a general matter, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and its subsidiaries (“BBH”) is not licensed or registered to solicit prospective investors and offer investment advisory services in jurisdictions outside of the United States. The information on this website is not intended to be distributed to, directed at or used by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access the website.  Under certain circumstances, BBH may provide services to investors located outside of the United States in accordance with applicable law. The conditions under which such services may be provided will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis by BBH. BBH will only accept investors from such jurisdictions or countries where it has made a determination that such an arrangement or relationship is permissible under the laws of that jurisdiction or country. The existence of this website is not intended to be a substitute for the type of analysis described above and is not intended as a solicitation of or recommendation to any prospective investor, including those located outside of the United States. Certain BBH products or services may not be available in certain jurisdictions. By choosing to access this website from any location other than the United States, you accept full responsibility for compliance with all local laws. The website contains content that has been obtained from sources that BBH believes to be reliable as of the date presented; however, BBH cannot guarantee the accuracy of such content, assure its completeness, or warrant that such information will not be changed. The content contained herein is current as of the date of issuance and is subject to change without notice. The website’s content does not constitute investment advice and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. There is no guarantee that any investment objectives, expectations, targets described in this website or the  performance or profitability of any investment will be achieved. You understand that investing in securities and other financial instruments involves risks that may affect the value of the securities and may result in losses, including the potential loss of the principal invested, and you assume and are able to bear all such risks.  In no event shall BBH or any other affiliated party be liable for any direct, incidental, special, consequential, indirect, lost profits, loss of business or data, or punitive damages arising out of your use of this website. By clicking accept, you confirm that you accept  to the above Important Information along with Terms and Conditions.

 
1BBH sponsors UCITS Funds registered in Luxembourg, in certain jurisdictions. For information on those funds, please see bbhluxembourgfunds.com


captcha image

Type in the word seen on the picture

I am a current investor in another jurisdiction