After 12 years of working with homeless and low-income families in the Pacific Northwest, I am excited to join the Housing Opportunities portfolio team as the Philanthropy Northwest Momentum Fellow. The fellowship, developed by Philanthropy Northwest, is designed to prepare professionals from underrepresented communities for successful careers in the philanthropic sector. Over the next two years, I will be collaborating with and learning from my portfolio teammates through every aspect of the grantmaking process, and I look forward to meeting with many of the grantees and community partners along the way.
I am also excited to bring my experience and perspective as a direct service provider. I have managed a wide array of programs for low-income and homeless families and individuals. I began my career as a counselor at a shelter for homeless and refugee youths. Most recently, I managed several site-based and scattered-site transitional housing and rent assistance programs, established a resource center for the homeless community in Southwest Portland, and oversaw the conversion of a 20-year housing program from transitional to permanent supportive housing. I have also developed trainings on housing market navigation and landlord/tenant rights, collaborated with community agencies to provide Rent Well education, and advocated for low-income renters in both private market and governmental settings.
The challenges that low-income and homeless families face in Portland’s housing market have left an indelible mark on me, and I look forward to giving a voice to that experience as we work toward more equitable housing together.
When I’m not working, I volunteer with the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon (APANO) and various community art projects in Portland. I also love to travel, read, watch hummingbirds in my backyard, hike, forage for mushrooms, explore the Oregon outdoors and bake when I can. So please share your favorite recipes or hiking spots when you see me!
In late 2016, Meyer’s Equitable Education portfolio commissioned a literature review highlighting 11 dimensions of educational equity. The purpose was to provide up-to-date information on issues that emerged as important in the statewide equitable education survey conducted by Meyer in early 2016. Each of the 11 “chapters” is a resource to deepen educators’ and community-based organizations’ grounding in the research-based insights on educational equity. Although there is variation across the chapters based on the resources available in the field, each chapter is a response to the field as a whole and has unique sections. We believe this is an important resource for advocates, educators and potential and current Meyer grantees. Meyer’s Equitable Education portfolio aims to promote the success of all Oregon’s students; we hope this series is a resource for the task.
Attached here is a virtual copy of the third chapter, which highlights the importance of ethnic studies implementation and offers a “deep dive” into the academic and “gray” literature, emphasizing how it engages students of color and increases their academic success as evidenced by research.
This topic is of particular importance in Oregon as Gov. Kate Brown recently signed House Bill 2845, which directs the Oregon Department of Education to convene advisory groups to develop ethnic-studies standards into existing statewide social-studies curriculum. A similar bill, Senate Bill 13, which will develop curriculum for Oregon K-12 schools on tribal history and sovereignty, written from the Native American perspective, was also signed by Brown. Through a grant from Meyer, Western States Center coordinated a coalition of tribal and education advocates to inform Oregonians on the importance and benefits of such a curriculum. On both accounts, this bipartisan legislation fills a much-needed, and often overlooked, gap in Oregon’s public education system.
Eurocentric curricula can lead students of color to disengage from academic learning, contributing to academic achievement gaps between African American, American Indian/Alaska Native and Latino students and their white and Asian American peers
The research is compelling: Social media is a powerful tool for nonprofits.
Last year, M+R partnered with NTEN (a local nonprofit based in Portland and former Meyer grantee) on the 11th Benchmarks Study of nonprofit digital advocacy, fundraising, social and advertising. The study followed the social media trends of 133 U.S. nonprofits and found that social media platforms have taken center stage in the work of nonprofits and are now essential to reaching vast audiences. Additionally, the study reported:
For every dollar nonprofits raised online, they spent 4 cents on digital ads
Online revenue for nonprofits grew by 14 percent over 2015 totals, with monthly giving growing at a rate of 23 percent;
The average email donation was $87 for one-time donors and $23 for monthly sustainers; and
Between 2015 and 2016, numbers of nonprofits’ fans grew by 23 percent on Facebook, 50 percent on Twitter, and their followers doubled on Instagram.
The overall trend was hopeful: Nonprofits use social media to reach more people more often and in more places, resulting in increased donations.
As Meyer’s social media specialist — and as someone who is constantly looking for new ways to amplify our grantees’ impact online — I see first-hand the importance social media can play in advancing the work of nonprofits. So I created a half-day training program to provide our grantees practical tips for developing strategic messaging on social media.
I wanted our grantees to have social media tools to help with organizing, time management and communicating advocacy. Those strategies are helping our partners to increase their presence and engage their audiences across social media channels such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
To better understand how Meyer could support our grantees as a funder, I surveyed current and former grantees to understand how they use social media, how they manage it and ultimately how Meyer can support grantees to build organizational capacity around social media and digital communications.
The responses were enlightening.
About 90 percent of the responders felt most comfortable using Facebook, the most important social media platform for engaging with supporters and building a credible online presence with or without a website. Two-thirds of those said they wanted to improve their mastery of the platform.
About half of the social media survey respondents wanted to use Twitter — the character-limited social media tool favored by pop stars and the president — more effectively, and about the same percent — 47 percent — needed training to increase their engagement on Instagram, the social media tool designed for images.
The survey identified that our grantees wanted support and training on social media best practices, effective time management, tracking metrics and how to advocate effectively on social media. Additionally, our grantees described their most significant challenges on social media as inconsistency in messaging, too little time and uncertainty about which social media platform to use.
One respondent said, “with less than 2.0 FTW, how do we decide which of the many social media options we utilize? I can barely post to FB once a month.” Another asked for insights in “helping management understand that social media can be a powerful tool for building advocacy.”
And a third wrote, “Training is the most important to us at this stage. Social media is new to us and we want to continue this but don't know enough about FB and how it works. We have two staff that post to our orgs account but they also have full-time jobs so this is not ideal. Our agency is small and this is challenging for us.”
The feedback helped us to tailor training specific to the needs of our grantees and launch a pilot series of social media classes in August 2017.
The four-hour sessions included training on how to set social media goals, develop strategies and navigate an array of tools that can lessen the burden of managing a nonprofit’s social media.
Laura Nash, communications manager at Northwest Health Foundation, led a section on how to communicate advocacy on social media. Attendees got hands-on Twitter exercises and opportunities to learn from their peers. And I used local case studies to model ways that nonprofits can use social media to reach their organizational goals and engage internal and external stakeholders.
Feedback from the trainings went into the creation of this social media recipe booklet, a tool I designed to help nonprofits get started on social media and to provide quick tips on how to use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn.
After the training, our grantees said they felt more comfortable and empowered to begin using social media at their nonprofit. They said they had a much better understanding of how social media can advance their organization's goals — whether those goals are to raise $5,000 to support a campaign or to recruit 50 volunteers for a capital campaign.
Meyer grantees who attended the sessions followed up to seek additional training for their staffs and boards. Stay tuned: We are exploring ways Meyer can provide broader support for digital communications to our nonprofit partners.
If you’re a Meyer grantee or partner with questions about the trainings — or another funder curious about ways you can support your grantees on social — don’t hesitate to darion [at] mmt.org (contact me).
These are words you’ll hear every time members of the sector gather. I heard that sentiment recently at Philanthropy Northwest’s annual conference in Vancouver, Wash., and again this week at the Cambridge Associates Impact Investing Forum in Denver, Colo. Our communications director, Kimberly A.C. Wilson, recently heard newcomers utter the phrase at ComNet17, a conference for communications folks working in the independent sector. An article that ran last year in Nonprofit Quarterly reflects the state of philanthropy today, with members of racial and ethnic minorities making up only 16 percent of foundation CEOs and 24 percent of full-time grantmaker employees.
Homogeneity is a perennial nugget in philanthropy, still true after much discussion and effort to diversify.
But it should not be the case.
A few years ago, I joined CEOs from a handful of foundations and Philanthropy Northwest to create a fellowship program to bring greater diversity into philanthropy by opening the doors of philanthropy to members of communities long underrepresented in its staff and leadership, particularly communities of color, for successful careers in the philanthropic sector. The Momentum Fellowship program was our strategy to create meaningful professional experiences and pathways for people from historically marginalized populations to enter into the field.
In late 2015, the first cohort of two-year Philanthropy Northwest Momentum Fellows dispersed to six foundations in the Northwest: Marguerite Casey Foundation and Pride Foundation of Washington; The Oregon Community Foundation, Northwest Health Foundation and Meyer in Oregon, and Rasmuson Foundation in Alaska.
That inaugural class of nine mostly focused on the grantmaking side of philanthropy but also included an investment fellow. Each received professional development and networking opportunities, including peer-learning retreats, networking, professional coaching and trainings offered through Philanthropy Northwest and their host foundations. In return, host foundations got the chance to learn from and alongside thoughtful emerging leaders, dedicated to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in philanthropy.
Meyer’s initial three Momentum Fellows, Sharon Wade-Ellis, Marcelo Bonta and Katherine Porras, each shared fresh perspective, thoughtful approaches to their focus areas and an extensive range of personal and professional experiences. Their contributions — and questions — have been invaluable to our efforts to become a more just and equitable organization and employer working to eliminate barriers to populations that have experienced the greatest disparities.
The first class of Momentum Fellows recently wrapped up their work here and across the Northwest. Five are working full-time in philanthropy. Most of the others are pursuing other opportunities to remain in the sector. Even as their fellowships ended, their fellow-ship — as peers and colleagues — continues.
The second class of fellows, 11 in all, arrived last month at seven Northwest foundations: Rasmuson Foundation in Anchorage; Whatcom Community Foundation in Bellingham; Meyer, The Collins Foundation and the Women's Foundation of Oregon in Portland; Marguerite Casey Foundation in Seattle; and Empire Health Foundation in Spokane.
This time around, the fellows have been placed organization-wide: from grant and grantmaking operations and research and evaluation, to communications and community engagement.
The idea, in the beginning as now, is to expose newcomers to philanthropy, and those looking for growth in the field, to opportunities inside the sector that over time will lead to greater representation of racial and ethnic minorities in foundations and more broadly within the independent sector.
In October, Meyer was awarded the 2017 Governors Gold Awards for the foundation's equity work in Oregon.
The following is the edited transcript of Meyer's CEO Doug Stamm's remarks. You can listen along here:
On behalf of Meyer staff and trustees thank you to our Governors for this recognition and congratulations to this year’s Gold Award recipients.
It is an honor to stand here with you all. But more than an honor, being here is immensely important to me for the opportunity to speak with a room full of influential Oregonians.
Our state faces a number of divisions, urban-rural, class, sexual orientation, disability and race, to name a few. The past five years Meyer has set out on an equity journey to develop a deeper understanding of these challenges.
Tonight, I will spend my time focusing on some key learnings from our racial equity work in the hope that you’ll leave this evening committed to taking some of the same steps we have.
First step in working towards racial equity: Forget Portlandia!
Oregon is not a white state now, and it will be even less so in the near future. When we talk about quality of life in Oregon let’s recognize that it looks very different depending on the color of your skin.
Next is History.
Face the facts, Oregon has one of the most racist histories of any state in the union, but I bet none of us were taught that in school.
There is no sanitizing what happened to indigenous people in Oregon. Or to Japanese Oregonians who were interned, or to African Americans, who were first excluded from living in Oregon under our state constitution, then redlined into neighborhoods in Portland they were later forced out of by gentrification.
We’ve long been a haven for white supremacists and hate groups, starting with over 35,000 KKK in the 1920’s, the largest contingent west of the Mississippi.
Oregon’s true history underscores the persistent inequities that divide us. You see its results today in deep disparities drawn along lines of race. And knowing that — our whole history — helps us to face those cultural and structural barriers to equity head on.
Knowing our past leads us to the next step: Getting used to discomfort.
A core concept in racial equity training is the idea that ambiguity and non-closure are part of the learning.
We need to move beyond “Portland Nice” and the comfort of our myopic view of pseudo-progressiveness. And embrace what for many white people are challenging conversations around race and oppression.
If, when we hear reports of football players joining a silent protest against our history of racism, it feels more comfortable to see their bent knees as an attack on our flag, or on America… that's a good moment to pause.
And step back into the tension we might feel about how police brutality and killings occurs against black and brown people at rates far higher than anyone else.
Sit with that.
That discomfort brings us to the place where we can make a difference: Action.
Do something about it. Use your privilege for good. Call it out for what it is.
Like me, many in this room were born into and come from a place of privilege that helped us get into college, get our first job, put a down payment on a house or help our children advance in their careers.
What if we instead use our privilege to actively call out and take on the structures and systems in our state that perpetuate racism and oppression?
I believe we make Oregon a better place by asking ourselves that question until it is second nature to use our privilege for those without privilege.
That is the definition of being a white ally and an extension of the lesson about discomfort.
Oregon doesn’t have Confederate statues standing outside our state house in Salem, or the Southern Cross in our state flag.
What we do have, and it is no less shameful, is the Number One ranking for reported hate crimes. You’ve heard of some of them: the brutal stabbings on the MAX line in May; telephone threats to shoot crowds at a multicultural festival in June; racist graffiti spray painted on the walls of four elementary schools over the past few weeks. All perpetuate notions of white supremacy in our state.
That should be upsetting to each of us. So what will you do with that discomfort? I urge you to an be an active white ally, a co-conspirator if you will, for equity.
You were handed a card as you came in. It has a few next steps to becoming an ally, practical ones, including a simple test, called the American Dream Score, designed to help us better understand privilege.
Take the test and then learn, reflect and show up by using your power, your privilege, in meaningful ways that move us closer to a better, more just Oregon for all.
Thank you!
— Doug Stamm delivered these remarks at the 2017 Governors' Gold Awards benefiting Special Olympics Oregon
Groundswell Fund received the ‘Smashing Silos’ Impact Award for their philanthropic leadership in reproductive justice and intersectional approach to supporting women of color, low-income women and LGBT people as grassroots activists.
Here is LGBTQ Weekly's coverage of NCRP's awards ceremony in Louisiana:
“We dedicate this award to our grantees who transgress issue silos every day, the radical queers in Arizona working for health care and immigrant rights, the Black women in Pittsburgh fighting for environmental justice and abortion care, the Native women on the reservation demanding contraception access and birthing justice,” said Groundswell Fund’s executive director, Vanessa Daniel.
Learn more about the Groundswell Fund and why they're being honored for their leadership in supporting these efforts, here.
The casual re-emergence of bald-faced and deadly racial bigotry, here in Oregon just months ago and most recently in Charlottesville, is a drum beat, a persistent reminder that white supremacy and racism are resurgent across the country. It may sound trite, but watching shield- and torch-carrying white supremacists incite, maim and kill their fellow Americans kind of puts a pin on the timeline. It is well past time for all of us who believe in the values of justice and inclusion to, at the very least, stand up and use our voices against white supremacy, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and the structures in our society that oppress people of color.
There is no other just alternative. Hate is not normal. That’s the conversation white people should be having with our families, our neighbors, our co-workers, our co-worshipers, our elected officials and within our broader communities. In this extreme moment, we have to be unrelenting in our condemnation and intolerance for any and all forms of racism, hateful messaging and bigotry.
As a program officer working in Meyer’s Housing Opportunities portfolio, I‘ve been asking myself what will it take to triage the housing crisis for Portland’s most marginalized homeless populations: people with disabilities, seniors and people of color.
A recent groundbreaking goes a way toward answering my question, one of a handful of new affordable housing developments to break ground in the Portland region.
Last week, on a sweltering summer day, I joined housing advocates, nonprofit leaders, community members and elected officials to celebrate the groundbreaking for a new housing development along North Interstate Avenue in Portland’s historic King neighborhood. And though I’m not a native of this historic African American community, the event touched me deeply. I listened as community members recounted what happened to the King neighborhood and community they called home for 50 years before urban renewal leveled bungalows and family businesses alike.
This new affordable housing complex — Charlotte B. Rutherford Place — reflects an effort to amend decades of gentrification and the subsequent displacement of residents from historic neighborhoods in North and Northeast Portland.
Named after the Hon. Charlotte B. Rutherford — community activist, former civil rights attorney and retired judge — the 51-unit housing development, guided by the City of Portland’s Right to Return housing policy will offer affordable 1- and 2-bedroom units for families who have been displaced by gentrification.
“Hopefully people who wanted to stay in the community would be able to stay in the community,” said Judge Rutherford, who retired in 2010 after serving for 18 years in Oregon’s Office of Administrative Hearings.
Rutherford’s family settled in North Portland to work in the shipyards in the 1940s and over time became one of the leading African American families in Portland during the civil rights movement. Her parents, Otto G. Rutherford and Verdell Burdine, were major figures in Portland’s NAACP chapter in the 1950s and helped shepherd passage of the 1953 Oregon Civil Rights Bill.
Rutherford said she hoped the new building of 34 one-bedroom and 17 two-bedroom units, set along Interstate Avenue steps from a Head Start school and the MAX light rail, would “restore a sense of community to North Portland.”
Charlotte B. Rutherford Place is one of a trio of housing developments in Central City Concern’s Housing is Health Initiative that will provide 379 new units of affordable housing to Portland residents by 2018.
Another building in CCC’s initiative, the Stark Street Apartments, will provide 155-units of critically needed permanent housing for people exiting from transitional programs. Repeat patients who enter local emergency departments often they don't have stable housing, said Dave Underriner, regional chief executive, Providence Health & Services.
“We know that stable housing has a profound impact on health,” Underriner added.
The third CCC project, dubbed the Eastside Health Center, an integrated housing complex that will serve people in recovery from addiction, medically fragile people and people with mental illness. The Eastside center will house 176-units of affordable housing, contain a two-story clinic and offer 24-hour clinical support. A $500,000 grant from Meyer’s Housing Opportunities portfolio supports the Eastside development.
“This housing will remain affordable for generations and it couldn’t come at a better time,” said Ed Blackburn, president and CEO of Central City Concern, Portland’s largest provider of supportive housing and health services targeting homeless adults.
Hon. Charlotte B. Rutherford and Sharon Wade Ellis discussed the importance of community at the groundbreaking of the Interstate Apartments in North Portland, named in honor of the retired administrative judge.
A persistent education opportunity gap exists with regard to race, economics, disability and geography. Unfortunately, efforts over the years to address disparities have offered limited relief as the gap stubbornly continued its decades-long growth. Despite evidence of the need for educational equity for Oregon’s most marginalized communities, ill-informed and damaging myths have penetrated our collective consciousness, excusing us from the systems-impact work necessary to ensure meaningful public education for all.
In partnership with Dr. Ann Curry-Stevens, Meyer’s Equitable Education portfolio aims to call out, and debunk, the incessant myths that function as barriers to equitable education in Oregon. This blog is intended to provoke both thought and action, offering an opportunity to look beyond common myths and re-imagine an education system rich in opportunity. It represents the beginning of a “myth-busting” series that will be shared regularly through portfolio newsletters and blog posts.
The idea that racism is over is an insidious myth.
Shockingly, just 16 percent of white Americans believe that there is considerable racial discrimination. Although it’s undeniable that we’ve made significant progress in civil rights, racism shows up in a variety of damaging ways. For example, according to a study, white Americans believe children of color feel less pain than white children. Such thinking isn’t evident among 5-year-olds, whose compassion hasn’t narrowed yet, though racial preference for white friends shows up that early. Additionally, white people judge black children to be older than they are, more dangerous and less innocent and also think lighter skinned people are “more intelligent, competent, trustworthy and reliable than their darker-skinned peers.” In Oregon schools, these realities show up in disproportionate discipline among students of color, increasing barriers to graduation.
Although today’s racism isn’t always easy to spot like in the past (e.g., slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, denial of citizenship, forced movement into residential schools, refusal to grant voting privileges, legal denial of housing, segregation of public services and “separate yet equal” education), it is alive and well. The progress we’ve made as a society has fallen drastically short of equity between people of color and whites. Research shows stark inequality in nearly every social and life indicator: education, income, wealth, home ownership, health, the justice system, the child welfare system, employment systems, higher education and many more. Some believe these inequalities exist as unfortunate historical remnants of a bygone era; the evidence, however, suggests something altogether different. Inequality is substantial and hasn’t budged; in many cases, it’s getting worse.
In education, racism shows up in public policy, too. Early learning opportunities based on who can afford it, do greater harm to children of color who disproportionately experience poverty. Children of color enter kindergarten already behind their white peers. And when public investment in education fails to keep pace with need, resulting in cuts to activities, curriculum and teachers, who manages to maintain a well-rounded education? Those who can afford it. Again, this leaves behind students in poor communities, often students of color. Whose histories are in the curriculum and whose are ignored or given little attention? Does our educator workforce reflect the vibrant diversity of Oregon students? These forms of racism exist not by intention (harm is meant), but by impact (harm is done).
One barrier to progress in equitable education is that advocates must continually make the case that racism exists, that it is pervasive and that it limits the academic progress of students of color. One writer put it this way: “If Americans assume racism is less of a problem [after Obama], then misperception may make it tough to get resources.”
A crucial action in debunking the “post-race” myth is to inform Oregonians about the type and depth of racial disparities that exist in our schools and the education system as a whole. Ask hard questions about patterns that create disparities and be prepared for the uncomfortable realization that the ideas, strategies, programs and institutions that we support, may actually be a part of the problem.
Another crucial action is to understand that as students of color in Oregon face deep, racialized challenges, white students are granted benefits that result from being white, instead of the result of effort or intelligence. This is a result of long-standing and deeply embedded racial hierarchies, with whites benefitting while people of color face barriers to equal progress. For example, which students do the teachers get to know, which names do they learn to pronounce correctly and which students are encouraged more? Research tells us that white teachers (who make up 90 percent of Oregon’s educator workforce) do a better job at teaching white students. For those not deeply engaged in education equity, this may be surprising. However, it also presents an opportunity to better understand the damaging effects of racism and the importance of unpacking privilege.
Racism can best be defeated when we notice it, acknowledge it and get to work on changing it. It’s a long, tough road, but the need is urgent and the future prosperity of our state depends on it. Let’s get to work.
I welcome your thoughts on this series of myths and myth-busting.
Matt Morton, director of Meyer's Equitable Education portfolio, interviewed Edgar Villanueva, Vice President of Programs and Advocacy at the Schott Foundation for Public Education and board chair of Native Americans in Philanthropy.
They sat down together at the Native Americans in Philanthropy Summit in Los Angeles in May for a dialogue on equity, education, affinity groups and impact.
Matt Morton:
I was inspired by your recent article, “Sit In It,” which ran in the Huffington Post. You say “To achieve equity, philanthropies must make space for deeply troubling conversations, and keep having them.” So I’m really curious about that, embracing that discomfort, particularly in philanthropy. Talk with me about embracing discomfort when working toward equity in your work at the Schott Foundation and Native Americans in Philanthropy. What are some of the barriers you see, working in philanthropy, that have acted as barriers to authentic equity work?
Edgar Villanueva:
I’m pushing the philanthropic sector to have uncomfortable conversations that consider the origin of our work, the wealth to do this work—the source of the money. What I’ve found is that there are some great foundations that have really come to terms with how this wealth was accumulated—for the most part because of privilege—and in many cases, it was earned on the backs of people of color. Therefore, philanthropy must acknowledge that, apologize for that history, and be earnest in the equitable distribution of the wealth through our grantmaking strategies. Our priority is returning these resources to the communities from whence they came.
We must also acknowledge that private philanthropy exists in this country because of our tax system, which benefits the wealthy. Philanthropic dollars would have gone into the public trust; however, because of the tax benefits, there’s the opportunity for wealthy individuals or families to start their own foundations. However, if trustees and those who start foundations appreciate that the purpose of the funding is to benefit the public (and not money that is intended to preserve a family's legacy of wealth), it really results in a different kind of grantmaking strategy.
Take, for example, the Northwest Area Foundation in Minneapolis. They acknowledged that their money was made from the railroad business. Its founder built railroad tracks from Minneapolis all the way to the West Coast. As a result, several Native communities were negatively affected by the accumulation of that wealth. So now the foundation is very intentional about Native Nations in that region as a form of undoing the harm caused to those communities.
Matt Morton:
Yeah, 40 percent of their grantmaking is reserved for investment in tribal communities.
Edgar Villanueva:
Exactly. The wealth of that region is rooted in Native lands and communities, and the foundation committed to both acknowledging and honoring that history. That’s why they’ve devoted 40 percent of new grant dollars to Native-led organizations working to advance economic, social, and cultural prosperity in the region.
As another example, I’ve been talking with the leadership of the NoVo Foundation, who are getting a lot of things right in terms of truly listening to people impacted by disparities. They are designing a grantmaking strategy that truly reflects what they’ve heard. Often in the past, philanthropy used focus groups to say that they listened and then put out a grantmaking strategy that is really only what they thought should happen in the community. But if you read what Peter and Jennifer Buffett have written about NoVo and their approach to philanthropy, you will see that they have a profound awareness of their privilege, and they’ve also gone through a lot of reflection on their end to decolonize their thinking about wealth and giving. It really shows up in their grantmaking practices. NoVo is very committed to gender and racial justice, and they have an Indigenous communities portfolio. They are investing significant money into communities of color. So I think those who hold power and privilege at the top of these foundations have a responsibility to say, “Okay, because of the historical context that provided the opportunity for me to have these resources, it is my duty then to pay it back in a way that is respectful and supportive of those communities that had a part in generating this wealth but did not benefit from it.”
Matt Morton:
So, you’ve served on the board of Native Americans in Philanthropy for a number of years, and you were recently elected chair. What are your thoughts on philanthropic “affinity” groups and the role they play in philanthropy nationwide?
Edgar Villanueva:
I see great value in affinity groups. One critique that I have of philanthropy is that we love to talk, process, and intellectualize a lot. I could spend all of my time every day just talking to other funders, and there are numerous affinity groups to facilitate those connections. I think we have to assess which networks are providing value in pushing our work forward, those that are creating spaces for collaborative investment opportunities. The lens that I use is this: if being a part of this group is going to result in more money or move more resources to the communities that I care about, then I’m interested in being a part of it and trying to make that happen. I am interested in ongoing learning about issues. However, I operate with a sense of urgency and action so participating in networks that align with those values work best for me.
Identity-based affinity groups are important for a number of reasons. They provide support and networking opportunities for people of color and other marginalized communities in this field. This can be a difficult sector to work in if you come from a marginalized community. Those groups also provide critical education and information about various communities within the field. And they create opportunities for us to advocate and mobilize resources in a way that presents leveraging opportunities that we might not have otherwise.
I’m convinced that there is more money being invested in communities of color today because of the leadership of affinity groups who are pushing for it.
Matt Morton:
So it sounds like it’s a real balance between the significant need of representation of communities of color, marginalized communities and underrepresented communities in philanthropy with the sort of intellectual circling that happens in philanthropy, the tendency in this field to, “let’s talk it to death because we have that privilege. We have that opportunity to.”
Edgar Villanueva:
Absolutely. And it’s really important. If you’re Native like me, most of us are probably the only Natives in our organizations, seeing that there are only about 25 Natives that work in institutional philanthropy across the U.S. Native Americans in Philanthropy provides a platform for us to connect with one another, to amplify issues in our community and to be able to really advocate for investment in our communities in a way that we would not be able to do individually.
These kind of affinity groups are also providing a seat at the table and providing a platform for collective advocacy for increased philanthropic investment and advancing equity across the field.
Matt Morton:
Sometimes it’s very clear that people don’t understand what equity is and they confuse it with equality. So, because your foundation is focused on equitable education, I wondered if you’d explain in that context of education, what is the difference between equity and equality?
Edgar Villanueva:
I come from a public health background and started working health philanthropy, and I went in thinking that people who are trained in public health have a basic understanding of equity, right? We were trained in the social determinates of health, so we understand that race and ethnicity matter, where you live matters, your income level matters. All these social conditions are indicators that will likely determine your ability to live a healthy life.
Education is very different, even within philanthropy. Often race/ethnicity is something that is not talked about. Because education is a right that every child has in this country, people make assumptions that all kids are getting the same quality of education. We know this is not the case because schools in low-wealth communities, many serving kids of color, are grossly under-resourced, which leads to all kinds of problems in the system. The decisions that are made around education are very personal. And it’s very hard for someone to compromise or make a decision that may not be in the best interests of their child for the sake of the greater good.
In the past, philanthropic and advocacy work in education was often described through an “achievement gap” frame, which is really a negative narrative about how people of color are not achieving. Schott, early on, began to promote a frame around the opportunity gap versus the achievement gap. It’s not that kids of color are unable to achieve at the same level as other kids, but there’s an opportunity gap because kids are not starting in the same place due to the injustices that exist in the system and in community.
There are also other factors impacting kids of color outside of their classroom, like the ability of their parents to earn a living wage in their community or access to health care, in addition to the opportunity to learn.
The simple way to think about equity versus equality is to ask where are we starting from? You know if all things were equal at the very beginning of the start then applying the same amount of resources, programming, and intervention for everyone would be just fine. But you have to understand that a lot of kids of color are showing up in schools from day one with a lot of disadvantages that have to be compensated for in order for them to be on the same playing field as other kids.
Matt Morton:
One of the things that we’ve done at Meyer over the last year or so is to work hard to create that shared definition of equitable education and when we talk about our vision for equitable education we say we’re working towards “ensuring meaningful public education for all.”
You’ve already defined what equity in education means to you, but in a world where we have all of these competing definitions, why do you think it matters that we actually have a common definition, whether within a foundation or within a sector?
Edgar Villanueva:
Language is a start but we have to deconstruct and dig into what we mean by equity and what we mean by education for all. We often say, “we believe all kids should have access to a high-quality education.” But who doesn’t believe that all kids should have a high-quality education? If you really want to dig deep into equity, it’s important to be more explicit.
Equity is a major buzzword right now in the field, but many are still figuring out how to operationalize it. Equity has been on the marquee for some big conferences. But I think that equity and conversations about race, gender, homophobia, all of those things have to be really explicit. Otherwise it just kind of gets lost in foundation-talk. I think that boys and girls of color in education are in many ways, the canary in the coalmine. Denying educational opportunities for kids of color demonstrates the inequities that exist in our system that ultimately will end up hurting all kids. If we’re not really investing in the places where the deepest hurt is, the result is, all kids are not going to be lifted up.
Matt Morton:
There’s a lot of stuff there that you said, and all resonates with me but a couple specifically that I want to call out. One is Dr. john a. powell and this Targeted Universalism approach. When we talked about “all kids,” it becomes a majority strategy, and that majority strategy continues to leave out those kids that have already been marginalized and left out. So really designing a targeted strategy around the students in education who have been historically underserved and marginalized becomes essential. One of the ways we’ve done that at Meyer within Equitable Education is that we’ve specifically called out our priority populations because, well frankly, equity is our title, and data can very accurately tell us those students who have experienced the opportunity gap.
So we’ve identified underserved communities: students of color, students living in poverty, students who are english language learners, those with disabilities and those who are first-generation college going; because we see compounding issues across all of those different categories, when you see students of color, you oftentimes also see students in poverty. When you look at your immigrant and refugee community, who are often of color, also in poverty, also learning English as a second language, and you tend to have compounding barriers to a positive, meaningful education.
So I really appreciate your commentary. For me, someone who is new in philanthropy still, it feels good that I have someone like you who, with your background in education and healthcare, is echoing the things that we’ve been focusing on over this last year while building our portfolio.
The other thing too I should mention, I think I shared this with you: We were invited to join an education funders group. I’m interested engaging with that group and, selfishly, I want to see more resources from those national funders find their way to Oregon. But certainly, if, in our little way we can start to drive the conversation around how we invest philanthropic dollars in public education, particularly in public education for our priority populations, I think that would be a huge win.
Edgar Villanueva:
Yes it would! And I would add two things.
In philanthropy data is very important. In 2006, Schott published our very first 50-State Report on Public Education and Black Males. It’s also known as the “Black Boys Report,” which has state-by-state analysis of academic achievement through a race and gender lens.
We consider the Black Boys Report to be a significant contribution to supporting a new conversation in the country about disparities for black boys. Schott was instrumental in starting the conversation within philanthropy that then snowballed to become the Executives’ Alliance that focuses on boys and men of color within philanthropy, which then influenced the launch of My Brother’s Keeper. We feel very proud that a relatively small foundation was successful in leveraging increased investment in the field as a result of compelling data and Schott’s philanthropic advocacy.
Data is critical in driving resource allocation decisions. I was just talking yesterday with someone who works at a health foundation that has a strong focus on equity. She ran a report of their investment data to have a better analysis of who they were funding. She wanted to understand how many of their grantees were led by people of color with the assumption that if grantee organizations are led by people of color and are working in communities of color, the foundation was going to get to some greater parity in its investments. She found that the majority of the foundation’s funding was going to white-led institutional organizations. When she presented that data to her colleagues—she being one of the only persons of color working in this organization—she was personally attacked. She was called “righteous” and then there was justification made to not fund groups (led by people of color) because, “they don’t have the capacity” or “there are plenty of white-led groups that do really good work.” So there are still barriers, even with clear data. If we’re not cautious and very intentional, I think we can justify our way out of not doing the right thing even when we’re presented with the truth.
I appreciate the shared vision for equity that exists between Schott and Meyer. I first heard about the work that you were doing when I lived in Seattle. You have been very explicit about what you’re trying to do, and intentional, and a lot of that has been championed by the leadership of the foundation, which I think is very, very important. More often than not, I see a program officer, a person of color, or someone else within an organization who really “gets it.” They are trying to push things forward in the right direction, and it’s like moving a boulder up the hill when you don’t have the backing of the board and the leadership. I know that your CEO has been very open and honest about what needed to happen at the foundation and was very intentional about recruitment and hiring and the direction of the foundation. Your transparency is so helpful for others to see and understand. It’s okay if you don’t know, or you don’t have all the answers. We all can learn and do better. I appreciate that about you all.
Matt Morton:
Thank you for saying that, it really means a lot, and I would agree, it’s one of the reasons why Meyer attracted me away from the community work that I was doing.
So one of the first questions I asked you was about “leaning in” or “sitting in” it, you know, being uncomfortable. You mentioned the organizations that have done that tend to have a different way of grantmaking, and that grantmaking is focused on actually responding in a way that is reflective of what the communities are seeking versus what the philanthropic organization thinks the communities want. So there was an article recently about how the education sector should reach out to communities to better engage students and their families.
Within Meyer’s Equitable Education portfolio, we really put a lot of stock in the importance of community self-determination, recognizing community expertise and agency to determine the most effective strategies to increase student achievement. How we define it within community is that the community are experts of their own experience. How do you see that approach? Or, have you seen that approach positively impact outcomes in your work with historically underserved communities? And the reason why I’m asking, I should say, because I think this will, as we invest more in this way, within the Equitable Education portfolio, for example, the more scrutiny will be placed on it if we don’t see immediate return on investment. So I’m looking to you, is this a nice thing to say, or is this something we can actually demonstrate? This self-determination works, community-driven solutions work, does it work better than the “white savior” mentality that philanthropy often has: go in, drop the solution, then leave.
Edgar Villanueva:
It begins with our values. Are we seeking to really understand equity and to do the hard, sometime uncomfortable work of changing our internal systems and practices to reflect our understanding? At Schott, we truly believe that change is best achieved when the community’s impacted by injustices are significantly engaged as the leaders. Communities must lead with solutions. The majority of our investments support community-based movement-building organizations. We support activism by students, parents, and teachers who are putting external demands on school districts, on states, and at the federal level to bring about systemic and policy change to advance an equal opportunity to learn for all students.
In terms of having a return on investment, if you believe and lead with that value— that it’s critical that student voice, parent voice be at the table—there has to be resources provided to get them there. In most cases they’re not automatically invited in. Schott's funding has supported creating space for student voice and parent voice to be heard.
For example, in Mississippi, Schott supports an organization called Southern Echo. Southern Echo was successful in creating parent councils around the state. Now significant decisions that are being made by the districts are mandated to engage parents from these councils in decisions that impact education. And that’s a good thing. Some parents may not be engaged because they don’t feel empowered or invited to the table. If you create and support these mechanisms for engagement, for them to not just be at the table but for their voice and their solutions to be meaningful contributions to the decisions that are being made, you see positive outcomes.
Of course, we measure success too. Schott Foundation is a public foundation, which means that we raise money and rely on donors to support our programs. Articulating outcomes is important. Consider this about movement-building. If a movement can be built, then you can measure how it’s growing, how it’s being built, if it’s getting larger. Is the constituent base growing? Are the number of people engaged in public education growing? And what are the systemic and policies wins that came about from the groups that we’re supporting? How many people were impacted by those wins? At Schott, we track these types of indicators. We know that there is higher return on investment on grants made for advocacy versus programs.
Where you have to exercise some caution, is that ROI is not always about a policy win. We don’t win all the time and when we do, implementation is a whole different issue. There are other measures of success that must be considered. In some ways, I’m grappling with this, as are many grantees who are required to report on their advocacy efforts. I am looking at policy and system wins, and I am looking at the impact of the reach and the capacity of our grantees. Again, evaluation of this work comes back to our values set. I don’t believe in my years in this work that we would have seen so much progressive policy change without the demand for it from communities. So investing in that community demand and power is imperative, even if it’s hard to measure.
Matt Morton:
Yeah. You know, I really, appreciate that, in fact, let me just take a minute to tell you what we’ve kind of experienced here. So we have three goals within Equitable Education; the first one is building a unified movement around equitable education. The second is around systems and policy change, because we recognize that there are organizations better equipped to be engaged in community, and we recognize organizations are better equipped in that direct policy and systems change work. And then the third goal is around increasing student achievement for priority populations. So we recently had 163 eligible applications that came in. A good 70 percent of those landed in goal three and 30 percent landed in the first two goals. With the first goal, movement building, I think we got maybe a total of 12 applications. And what that really told me was that the system, the two plus decades of disinvestment in public education in Oregon, has driven all of our community-based organizations, our service providers, nonprofit and otherwise, into this space of backfilling public education.
So now we’re very early in the process of reviewing proposals and making recommendations for consideration, but I’m already thinking we have a lot of work to do to prepare organizations to have authentic relationships with communities where they can start to do the organizing, engagement and movement building before they’re even ready to accept resources for those purposes.
Edgar Villanueva:
I’ve been a part of funding the progressive movement for some time, mostly supporting multi-issue work. When I was at the Marguerite Casey Foundation, we didn’t have a lot of grantees with an education focus. Most of the groups that were doing educational organizing were multi-issue, so it was a part of their platform. They might have been organizing around minimum wage, economic justice, and education. There are a handful of national education-focused coalitions, and a lot of organizing is done by labor. The movement is growing.
At Schott, I have a pretty good sense of the national landscape. I know the national networks who are doing education justice work and again, it’s a pretty small universe compared with the worker’s rights movement, for example. There’s also a dynamic of unions that comes into play. I do believe that post-election, education has absolutely been elevated as an issue of concern to the public. People who have not been paying attention to education or have focused on other issues are now prioritizing the fight for public education. For example, People’s Action is one of the largest base-building organizations in the country. They are very powerful with a massive membership base that covers most of the country. They were a grantee of mine when I was at Marguerite Casey Foundation. At that time, they were primarily focused on economic justice and immigration. They are now talking about public education too. The past several e-mails I’ve received from them have been about the education budget, so I think there is an awakening in the broader progressive movement about what’s happening in education and the need to organize around it. If you truly believe that public education is the last mainstay of our democracy and how our democracy is threatened by privatization, then you have a lot of cause to be alarmed right now.
Matt Morton:
Thank you. So there’s one more question; I mentioned our Equitable Education portfolio, this is our first annual funding opportunity. We received 163 eligible applications requesting about $22 million. Over the next three years, we have $7.8 million that we can commit. Out the door this year: $5.2 million. I just wanted to know, do you have any advice for us as we prioritize our investments for impact?
Edgar Villanueva:
Yes. A couple things to think about: being new at Meyer and this portfolio being pretty fresh, having an open call may be helpful because you get a sense of the landscape. Over time, however, I would think about a way to narrow down the number of applications I was reviewing, perhaps by invitation only, or to have very specific types of RFPs or ROIs. This is a growing trend. There are ways to be very transparent about the process, and I’ve found that grantees appreciate not applying if they’re not really a fit.
Put a priority on funding groups that are working with communities of color. My first “yes” pile would automatically be groups that are working with communities of color, that are led by people of color. But you can’t necessarily apply the same criteria across the board . This is where a lot of these groups lose out, because if you have blanket selection criteria, such as budget size, then you may automatically be cutting out grassroots groups led by people of color.
It’s okay to give those proposals special treatment. That is equity - it’s special treatment and special consideration. One of the first steps I’d make is to try to find a way to say “yes” even if those applications are missing a budget attachments, or you have to do some follow-up to get more information. That is the work that is required to make sure those groups have access to resources. They may not have a development director who’s going to submit a well-written perfect application. We must be willing to do the work to support the success of their proposals.
Matt Morton:
Thank you. This is precisely the message I’ve delivered to my team as we’ve been reviewing these. We want to create a fair system but with the recognition that, in fact, equity compels us to look at things in a way that may not be, to address things in a way that may not be, to respond to things in a way that may not be what we expect or what we’ve been doing in the past.
You touched on something else, where we sort of “white-splain” the reasons why organizations aren’t sophisticated and the reasons why we don’t fund them because they don’t fit into this nice, pretty package that we expect to see. I think that's been one of the bigger challenges that we have faced organizationally, and as a sector, as equity has been attempted. To operationalize equity often means that, all of a sudden, it just doesn’t look the same. It’s hard, and it’s messy, and it takes more time and with the concern of the risk involved. And philanthropy isn’t known for its risk taking generally.
Edgar Villanueva:
Right. In philanthropy, we’ve learned to find ways to say “no.” On one hand, a lot of foundations aren’t clear what they want to say “yes” to, so it’s just easier to say “no” to a lot of things.
Matt Morton:
Right.
Edgar Villanueva:
And then be really clear about what you want to say “yes” to and then that would guide you into being more transparent about it in the future.
It’s easy to create sweeping criteria to cut things out because of the large number of proposals to read. And you must exercise the understanding that what is reflected in this proposal is not necessarily reality. Anyone can hire an amazing grant writer to write a proposal. Many times, I’ve seen beautifully written proposals that do not reflect the real impact. You have to take the proposal with a grain of salt.
Proposals are just another step in the approval process. For me, other parts include the community knowledge that you have, and that’s great because you’re a place-based funder, so you know what’s going on and where some impact could be, just from the context of things. You might get some other information from a site visit. All of these information sources should be put into the soup that leads to finding a way to “yes” and “no” and not putting too much weight on a piece of paper, that we don’t know who wrote, or if someone is just so busy doing the work that they just don’t have the right tools and abilities to articulate it in a proposal.
Schott funds almost all small, grassroots organizations and when I tell you that I’ve had to sit on the phone and help type a proposal for people because they’re driving across the rural South or wherever and they don’t have time, it’s true. By any means necessary to support the right work. We don’t want our complicated process to prevent us from funding amazing work on the ground.
