Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) have become an important topic of conversation around institutional giving, especially for foundations whose primary goal is to support and build up marginalized communities and whose values are rooted in social justice principles.
It is likely that, if you are a philanthropic professional yourself, you have heard the acronym D&I mentioned all around either at your workplace or throughout the various affinity groups you are active in. It is also very likely that in those conversations, diversity and inclusion referred to your giving strategies and practices as following their principles increases philanthropic impact while simultaneously reducing waste of resources. Diversity and inclusion have become, among site visits, monitoring grantees’ finances and progress in the field, another set of tools to build into philanthropic due diligence, including in the field your engagement is trying to sustain. And rightfully so, one cannot change much if resources invested to bring about change end up empowering the same groups and do nothing to challenge existing systems of power and oppression.
Equity is very often a piece left out of these conversations and there are many reasons why foundations choose to omit it, despite its importance in encouraging a critical approach to access to resources and information as well as equality of opportunity. One reason which comes to mind can be the philanthropic sector as such, whose existence is in itself a staple of existing social inequalities. Wealth acquisition by only a handful of individuals out of more than 7 billion people is certainly a question of fairness, especially in countries where the richest are not taxed in proportion to their earnings and investments. Omission of equity in a foundation’s work can be additionally linked to the fact that it is much harder to implement than diversity and inclusion. That is, of course, not to say that D&I are easy concepts to introduce, quite on the contrary, it does, however, seem that equity is not only rooted in understanding of social realities and their complexities, it is also a critique aiming at changing the very nature of how capitalism and disregard for participatory economies reduces societal fairness.
Ever since DEI became issues of concern in the sector, a number of experts have spoken out on what it means to actually put those values into practice and improve existing support for marginalized communities, where an emphasis is put onto representation and the need for broader presence of grantees and their populations in various decision-making processes, redefining what constitutes philanthropic risk and trust built between an institution and its various partners, as well as (something that may be easier said than done) understanding that changes cannot happen overnight and that introducing DEI is also a giant cultural shift, especially for those philanthropic institutions built on an individual or a family’s legacy. The more removed from a community a foundation is, the harder it is to implement a new approach of shifting and reframing power, especially when it comes to its internal procedures and dynamics.
What does not seem to be yet tackled enough, however, is the question of how DEI can be better put into practice within those philanthropic institutions themselves. Different conversations with colleagues from the sector led me to compiling a list of seven things that both private and public foundations in the United States still get wrong about DEI when it comes to their own structures and processes.
This list, and many other issues which have not been named in this post, comes from a place of love – I certainly believe that philanthropy can change individual lives, help movements flourish and improve societies. To be be able to do that, however, philanthropy also needs to understand that it is not free from criticism and much, if not most, of this criticism aims at ensuring that the sector adapts to shifting realities, especially if the most needed shift involves power.
1. Not rethinking internal hierarchies and their impact on staff
“We’re all in this together!” is a phrase repeated during many office meetings, especially those organized to get a sense of how staff of various levels feels about certain issues, whether it’s a strategic direction the organization wants to explore or an internal shift that was deemed as discussable outside of senior leadership. This togetherness, however, tends to come to a complete halt in an arbitrary manner, making it harder for non-management staff to understand their own position within the leadership hierarchy and their own agency within the institution as such.
Not only does this disrupt workflow, it actually fails to address another issue that has been resurfacing within the world of non-profit management (including foundations) – everyone has a leading potential which can be (and is!) stifled by strict hierarchies. These hierarchies also replicate patriarchal structures, putting too much pressure or one person or two people, instead of creating a more communal, self-directed and non-linear arrangement that can help empower staff of any responsibilities.
Philanthropy that believes in social justice and expertise coming from marginalized communities, should not only support the work in the field, but also bring lessons from the field to the sector. And there is no better lesson to learn from your grantees than effective organizational management and leadership that defies outdates structures.
2. Citing staff statistics without context in DEI reports
It is important to know how diverse a foundation’s staff and trustees are, but it is also important to understand that statistics are only a part of the story. When an organization showcases its inclusion of various groups, for example how many women of color work are part of its workforce, it should also be looking at how many of these women are in leadership positions, how many are grant-makers or officers working with legal issues, communications and staffing.
What if most of the staff coming from the group you want to showcase works in assisting positions? Does that aid you in conversations around empowerment or, on the contrary, shows that there is still a lot to be done in that area? An analysis of staff diversity is also a question to what extent institutional stratification mirrors that of society. If representatives of marginalized communities occupy positions without power, what exactly is it that the institution tries to prove and/or change?
At the same time, putting a few persons of certain characteristics or experiences in positions of power without a critical approach to existing structure encourages tokenism, the practice of diversity without neither inclusion nor equity.
3. Not practicing salary transparency
Salary transparency is still, especially in the United States, a controversial topic. It is often believed that when employees are aware how much their colleagues earn, this knowledge will turn them against one another and therefore destroy the fragile microclimate that is a modern workplace.
However, in places where salary transparency is practiced, employees become more informed about their own and their colleagues situation, which, in turn, will help them organize and demand change. And if leadership remuneration is also known, that can also assist the institution in its cost analysis, including, if necessary, changes to salary structure to effectively balance responsibilities and job profiles. In the end, it should be a philanthropic institution’s goal to create proportional and just salary ranges and be transparent about how these ranges are then being put into practice.
Once wages are well-known, it becomes clear who is underpaid despite having comparable skills and experiences. With a workplace compromising of a few dozen staff, unequal pay will start showing certain trends, most of which will, inevitably, point to which groups are not favored when it comes to access to resources. And in most cases, it will be the most marginalized.
4. Not encouraging staff to unionize
There cannot be true social justice without workers’ rights. And there is no better protection of those rights than a union and, to complete it, a contract between the management and staff that ensures accountability, builds a culture that safeguards existing positions and ensures that staff is treated in an equitable manner.
Yet, in the United States, unionizing continues to be frowned upon, even within the philanthropic world and very few, especially in the realm of private philanthropy (much like in the private sector in general) have a chance to finalize this process without having their efforts undermined.
A union can help a foundation rise above and beyond when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion. Unionizing helps ensuring transparency, keeps employees active and interested in their own and their colleagues’ rights and encourages dialogue between staff of various levels and responsibilities. Efforts to implement DEI within an institution’s internal structure cannot be complete without a union present and active in the whole process.
5. Showcasing staff in leadership positions only
Approach to representation very much varies within the sector and there are certainly institutions which invest in staff’s participation in events, help seize media opportunities or just simply mention different workers and their achievements in their communications. The latter is certainly more common as an internal practice rather than external. That co-worker who recently received a degree in a complicated field while simultaneously being available to their institution for more than 40 hours a week may receive a congratulatory email from their manager (sometimes even forwarded to a broader team), but will you hear about them through their employers Twitter feed? You probably will not but there’s a high chance that their degree will be counted in the next issue of in-company statistics.
It is not just about achievements, however. Elevating and recognizing staff matters in other contexts too. A common practice in the sector is, for example, publishing press releases about new leadership (staff and governance alike). One would think that it is a straight forward practice, but I would argue that in philanthropy dedicated to social justice, many staff members come from a wide range of professional backgrounds, sometimes also as experts hired from grantee organizations themselves, and hence also deserve recognition. A colleague whom you have just welcomed to your team may just be responsible for administrative tasks but it does not mean that they were not a renowned leader in their field before they joined the sector. Everyone’s journey to philanthropy is different and we should strive to honor these equally.
And lastly, a recent development in the sector – elevating existing hierarchies by presenting staff differently on the institution’s website, usually based on their current title. Major foundations in the US have started to remove pictures and longer biographies of staff who are not in management or leadership positions, creating a sea of faceless names without context, while the people behind them not only bring a lot of expertise to the organization, but are also more often in contact with the field. Staff should be able to opt out of online presence, not be forced into obscurity. Especially not by those institutions who are also striving to be vocal about DEI or champion them.
6. Constantly relying on external expertise
The philanthropic sector is drowning in consultancies. From field research through internal needs assessment up until the introduction of evaluation methods, there is always space for an external expert to come in and help understand where the institution or its work is currently at as well as to help it understand what should be the direction going forward. And that is certainly an important thing – an organization does not want to close itself off to other perspectives and only rely on internal knowledge.
There is, however, another side of this trend and that is the fact that perspectives of already diverse staff which experience intersectional oppressions is not only taken for granted but also bypassed when new policies and practices are being introduced. Bringing in participatory approaches with staff forming working groups and committees (whose mandate should be clearly defined and have a form of decision-making power and not just advise the leadership) is one of many possibilities how to challenge this lack of tapping into already existing knowledge. And if an institution is ready to pay for a substantial consultancy contract, it should not be an issue to figure out how to remunerate staff for their time spent on tasks clearly falling outside of their job description.
7. Demanding DEI action from grantees without proper attention to internal issues
Finally, an issue that brings about the oldest problem with the sector itself – the hypocrisy of demanding certain strategies and practices from grantees while the same strategies and practices have not been fully introduced within the institution. Despite it being a point of tension between staff in the same organization and professionals coming together from various institutions, this practice has not only not ceased, it is now becoming a sector-wide standard.
Philanthropic institutions continue to question grantees’ governance and staff diversity, ask about plans for empowerment of the most marginalized and sometimes even make part of that work an important part of the grant itself. And as much as it may seem admirable that we are looking for what is best for the populations we support and whom we serve, this type of practice cannot happen while our own organizations have not done the work of introducing the values we are so eager to push upon others.
If there is one thing that work on diversity, equity and inclusion should teach us then it is certainly – practice what you preach. An approach that many actors in philanthropy are yet to internalize.
1 Comment
Leave your reply.