Literature Review of Philanthropy for Social Justice
By Annie Hillar
Introduction
The literature review presented below has two aims: to add to the growing body of work that collects and synthesizes existing academic and practioner work on the issue of philanthropy for social justice; and to link theory and practice about what it means to engage in this particular form of philanthropy by outlining what it is, how it is done, why it is done. While the field of philanthropy for social justice is broad and includes multiple stakeholders such as foundations (family, private, public, community), governments, corporations, NGOs/nonprofits, and individuals, this review targets specifically the literature related to the role of institutionalized structures, as the PSJWG is comprised of foundations seeking to better understand and participate in this arena. In addition, issues of terminology have limited the range of materials highlighted in this review. In the North American context terms such as ‘philanthropy’ and ‘nonprofit’ are more commonly used separately. Due to a differing history of the sector as a whole, in other countries and regions the conceptual lens has often been that of ‘development’ and of using the term ‘civil society’ to denote all non-governmental activities (encompassing NGOs, foundations, volunteerism, individual giving, corporate philanthropy etc). Therefore, materials that dealt with NGOs/nonprofits rather than ‘civil society’ as a whole were incorporated. Finally, this review does not claim to be authoritative or exhaustive, but it does seek to outline a broad scope of understanding about this particular form and practice of philanthropy.
Practioner Efforts
A body of practioner literature focuses on defining what philanthropy for social justice means from the perspective of foundations, on offering tools to guide foundations in developing social justice grantmaking practices, and on determining the potential for social justice philanthropy.[1]
The Community Foundations of Canada (CFC), the Foundation Center jointly with Independent Sector, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), and Synergos produced major reports that seek to define the field. These reports provide exhaustive analyses of the concept of philanthropy for social justice as compared to traditional philanthropy, and offer some recommendations for advancing the agenda.
For the CFC, philanthropy for social justice is “work directed at social change, seeking solutions to social, economic, and political injustice by addressing root causes, not just symptoms” (6). This means an equitable redistribution of resources. Redistribution is key because within a liberal tradition it is institutions that (the state and others) that are the linchpins of working for the advantage some or the disadvantage of many. It is therefore imperative that the public take responsibility for pressuring institutions themselves to be just. Social justice equally means a recognition of diversity as injustice can take the form of cultural domination as well as social, economic, and political oppression. This diversity includes ethnicity, gender, sexuality, race, age, and disability. Put into practice, PSJ means honoring the priorities of the communities as they see them, advocating for the disadvantaged, sharing information, and providing long-term financial and non-financial support. Underlying this concept is that foundations must go beyond funding service provision and question the economic structures that have created the need for these services (that are not provided by the state) in the first place.
For the FC and IS, social justice funding should be directed to nonprofit organizations working to effect structural change to augment the political, economic, and social opportunities for the least well-off in society. Similarly, for the NCRP, philanthropy for social justice is the practice “of making contributions to nonprofit organizations that work for structural change and increase the opportunity of those who are less well off politically, economically, and socially” (2). Traditional philanthropy simply offers services, while social justice funding teaches groups of people how to organize and influence change that has a positive impact on themselves and society. Justice means more than identifying key structural issues or strategies to fund. It means that social justice itself is a process of engagement in developing a more equitable distribution of power in the political, economic, and social arenas. Therefore, it is crucial to understand that the ways in which a foundation does its work are as important as the initiatives, projects, and strategies it employs.
The key difference of social change (justice) grantmaking according to Synergos is that it addresses causes (lack of access to resources and power) rather than symptoms (poverty). To do this, it mobilizes those most affected by social problems. This is done by making long-term commitments, funding the grassroots, developing priorities set by grantees and not staff or board, building grassroots leadership, and promoting locally based philanthropy to ensure the sustainability of a movement. Alliance magazine (Milner 2003; Greer and Knight 2005) has also published several pieces on the topic, with Craig (2005) offering an analysis of the key conceptual frameworks for social justice through philanthropy: fairness and equality; recognition of diversity; meeting basic needs; reducing inequalities in wealth, income and life chances; and building in the participation of the most disadvantaged.[2] In all these analyses, social justice means focusing on root causes and on structural bases of inequality, inverting power dynamics by placing the most disadvantaged and marginalized at the center of decision making, and developing grantmaking processes and practices that are themselves founded in principles of social justice.
Professional philanthropic associations have also organized workshops, seminars, and engaged in critical thinking within their organizations to discuss and incorporate social justice grantmaking into their organizational aims. The East Africa Association of Grantmakers conducted a workshop in 2005 to define social justice philanthropy[3] within the context of East Africa’s specific development challenges. Recommendations included extending membership to the corporate sector, empowering members to lead trainings about philanthropy, building partnerships with governments to enhance the capacity of communities, liaising with faith-based organizations to advocate for social change, and inviting government officials for future workshops to give them a better understanding about issues affecting individuals at the grassroots. The Transatlantic Community Foundation Network produced a report (Milne 2001) on the potential of using social justice as a framework based on a gathering of community foundations from three US community foundations and foundations in Canada, the Czech Republic, Russia, Germany, England, Belgium and Northern Ireland. Participants acknowledged that their emphasis on charitable causes has hindered them from addressing deeper social justice issues. A key challenge is how to move away from traditional giving and actually practice the forms of leadership social justice calls for when one’s donor base finds the term idiosyncratic or controversial (a concern noted in the NCRP and CFC reports). As the report noted, some community foundations may not be ready or willing to take that step.
While some associations have recently begun to tackle the issue of social justice funding, many professional US organizations such as the Funding Exchange, Emerging Practioners in Philanthropy, Grantmakers Without Borders, and the National Network of Grantmakers, have long had social justice grantmaking as a key component of their missions, and have provided references for how to become a better social justice funder in practice (cf. Robin Hood Was Right: A Guide to Giving Your Money for Social Change). Goldberg (2002) highlights that these associations and the foundations and staff that are members engage in an ethic of ‘change not charity.’ What these social justice funders have in common are the core principles of addressing root causes, focusing on the marginalized and disenfranchised, holding themselves accountable to these constituents, and developing inclusive grantmaking processes. These principles are manifest in practices such as soliciting community leaders for input, convening grantees and other stakeholders, and funding advocacy and community organizing efforts. Such practices also require a willingness to take risks and an openness to vulnerability.
Academic Research
As Greer and Knight (2005) point out, there is an uneven body of academic work relating to the theory and practice of social justice grantmaking. The writing ranges from the descriptive to the analytical, detailing the positive and negative impacts of foundations that use a social justice framework[4]. The research in many ways reflects the findings of practioner studies.
Some research has claimed that social justice funders prioritize marginalized or disadvantaged populations and incorporate structures to adapt to their needs and circumstances. For Capek and Mead (2006), effective social justice philanthropy is a result of increased funding for women and girls and a more institutionalized understanding of gender and diversity within all foundations. They feature six foundation case studies from the United States and six model philanthropic initiatives that effectively address the ‘‘messier systemic roots’’ of gender injustice by showing how they went about institutionalizing the multi-faceted nature of gendered competence in that it requires addressing race, class, sexual orientation, religion, national identity, and so on (14). Clift (2005) highlights the role of the women’s funding movement and of integrating women’s issues into institutional settings (including the Ford Foundation – written by Barbara Y. Phillips, and international giving – written by Patty Chang and Kavita Ramdas) as catalysts for social change. Ploumen (2001) describes Mama Cash, an international women’s fund based in the Netherlands, as a case of putting social justice values into practice by engaging in grantmaking that is based on an agenda set by the women’s movement[5]. Ostrander (2004) analyzed how women’s funds, rooted in feminist values and practices of blurring the “stratified divisions between those who give money and those who seek it” (30), have sought to challenge imbalances of power between donors and grantees. She examined the processes by which the Boston Women’s Fund (BWF) engaged in a critical feminist dialogue with its grantees, thereby leading it to change its grants guidelines and create new programming that responded to the needs and aspirations of local women organizing. In terms of other disadvantaged or marginalized populations, Scaife (2006) studied members of Philanthropy Australia’s Indigenous grantmakers’ affinity group to explore how funding for Indigenous peoples differs from traditional grantmaking. She found that donors viewed this form of grantmaking through a social justice/social change lens. Funders approached their grantmaking from a perspective of addressing root problems, of reviewing proposals within their specific cultural context and not from a ‘business model,’ of emphasizing the role of Indigenous representatives in decision-making, and of long-term commitment to the communities they funded.
Other research highlights how social justice funders serve as advocates for justice movements by giving voice and leadership to grantees. McCarthy (2004) offers a case study of US environmental justice movement organizations and the foundations that supported them to demonstrate the extreme amounts of negotiation, process, trust-building, and advocacy that occurs within foundations in order to engage in environmental justice funding. It requires building alliances within and amongst funders, and engaging in research and advocacy within the donor community about environmental justice issues. It is the commitment to building community within donor institutions and working as allies and advocates for grantees that makes justice funding different. Similarly, Ostrander (1995) in describing the multi-racial community funding boards of the Haymarket People’s Fund, points out that true social change philanthropists not only give away money, but also the power to decide where it goes. Power rests with the activists, not the donors. Ostrander claims this democratized structure “makes philanthropy a participatory process by involving the groups who are, in more traditional kinds of philanthropy, recipients and beneficiaries, not participants” (164). Vanderpuye (2003) researched grantee-grantor social justice collaborations in New York to examine how foundations shifted grantmaking decisions to community activist boards made up of non-elites, and worked with grantees to develop positive and sustained collaborations that effectively redistributed resources by inverting the transfer of knowledge, skills and ownership of those resources. Wenrick (2006) uses a case study of Resource Generation to explore new donor structures that young people with class and race privilege create and tap into to address the root causes of social and economic injustices and to democratize the funding process. All these case studies point to how each funding structure operationalizes the social justice values of each donor group.
While much literature states that institutional philanthropy for social justice does put its principles into practice, some research does question its ability to act on these principles.
Some research claims that foundations working to eliminate root causes of injustice cannot fully do so because their bureaucratic nature is part of the problem. Roelofs (2003) argues that even liberal and progressive foundations in the United States provide the institutional basis for hegemonic power by the dominant class. Liberal foundations have a depoliticizing effect that neutralizes dissent by providing technical assistance and grants to bureaucratized NGOs to improve existing conditions rather than create alternative political and social configurations. Donors also bow to pressure to produce impact and results, which is difficult to measure when engaging in structural change. Biekart (1999) claims that private European aid agencies sought build civil society in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s as a way to address the root causes of poverty (unequal power relations in society). Yet, due to market pressures and the streamlining of aid into output and impact-oriented approaches, private agencies became driven to concretizing their work into simple charity provision with visible units of success (how many blankets distributed) as they moved away from the more complex, nuanced, and difficult to quantify values of solidarity and change. Shuman (1998), in an editorial, also argues that the current system of progressive philanthropy, even as it makes claims for social justice, is based in principles that are counterproductive to justice work. Foundations maintain they are apolitical or outside of politics, but social justice work by its nature is a political act. Foundations choose to focus on single issues rather than use a holistic approach. Yet, to be politically engaged requires a multi-faceted approach. In addition, grantmaking practices such as single-year rather than multi-year grants, project-based rather than general support, and a scattered approach that does not link the local with the national further hinder the progress of justice movements.
Foundations have also been criticized for their claims to be leaders of promoting social justice externally and within their own structures. As noted earlier, community foundations are looking to take more of a leadership role and focus on “promoting social justice” (Bernholz, Fulton and Kasper, 2005; Carson, 2005). Wolfe (2006) examined to what extent US community foundations are engaging in such community leadership, and specifically, what form their leadership is taking. Of the 134 foundation presidents surveyed, only 2% of the population was actually found to have a social change approach to their leadership. Silver (1997; 1998) analyzes the strategy of a social justice fund to integrate elite donors and community organizers into its grantmaking boards to break down barriers between donor and grantee. While the Crossroads Fund in Chicago sees these boards as a model of social justice activism based on grassroots principles, Silver argues that these decision making structures actually replicate class and race privileges and co-opt grassroots activists. His research follows on Jenkins (1998; Jenkins and Halcli 1999) that posits that there are great risks for movements and grassroots social justice organizations in linking themselves politically, socially, and economically to moderate or liberal family, corporate, or institutional foundations, as this form of “intermediation” may serve to “channel” the movement into more moderate discourses and practices. Instead, it is alternative foundations and public charities that are the only significant funders of more radical discourses.
Additionally, it is a challenge for PSJ to prove that it has the kinds of impact it claims to have, and to effectively identify its role within the broader landscape that encompasses not only grassroots groups and advocacy organizations, but also the state, corporations, the media and the public. Davies (2004) evaluates whether and how much a UK trust can claim it succeeded in promoting progressive legislation by funding and influencing specific advocacy initiatives. Davies argues that while the trust did enhance the work of individuals and organizations already involved in these advocacy initiatives (e.g. a UK bill of human rights), its claims to be a catalyst for change may not be as important as the fact that it showed a foundation can pursue political goals and be seen as a political actor in relation to the state and other NGOs, and that it listened to and funded new ideas in times of flux or crisis. Burkeman (2004) also cautions foundations that they must take into consideration the state and other major actors to make social change: “You can’t have social justice without social change, and in the end it is governments which have to act.”