Reckon is collaborating with KMSG and Candid, two groups that consult with non-profits, to profile some of the challenges facing philanthropic organizations across the country. Read more about this series here.
Flozell Daniels, the president of the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation (MRBF), is an advocate for social and economic justice in the South with years of experience leading dynamic and complex institutions for social good. Based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, MRBF partners with organizations and networks working to alleviate poverty and increase social and economic justice in 11 Southern states and has long been one of the South’s most prominent and high-scale funders in the areas of equity, justice and well-being. KMSG and Reckon spoke with Daniels about the role philanthropy can and should play when it comes to promoting equity and justice. Daniels highlighted the importance of building long-term connections and supporting networks of leaders working to achieve racial equity and power-building. Daniels also discussed some of the challenges unique to the South when it comes to human rights, social justice movement-building, and how the fight for justice looks a bit different from the rest of the country.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
KMSG: We know that Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation has a long history of supporting social and economic justice in the South; it’s not something you’re new to. Other funders are starting to get involved through affinity groups like Grantmakers for Southern Progress (and other regionally-focused foundations and movements). What do you think philanthropy at the national level could be doing more of as it relates to promoting equity and justice in the South?
Daniels: I think there’s a real opportunity for philanthropy in the South, particularly in this moment of challenge and change. It’s really important for philanthropy to play a catalytic role by partnering with leaders and organizations who are authentically engaging in freedom work. Here at the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, we’ve focused for years on moving people and places out of poverty, and have renewed commitments to establishing connections and supporting networks of leaders in their organizations – to accomplish the kind of power building and the racial equity muscle-building necessary for us to do the kind of freedom work that this moment is calling for.
Philanthropy has both the financial resources, as well as the connections and its own sense of power, to help catalyze (with and through our partners) the kind of work that’s necessary. That looks like funding, supporting and protecting the sustainability of groups that do the work. We believe work has to be done over the long term, generation after generation. You’ve got to be able to make those connections and stay connected in a way that allows folks to work through the practice of equity and justice for a long time.
KMSG: That’s something we’ve seen a lot of in terms of the clients that we work with at KMSG. On the philanthropy side, there’s been a real shift in how they think about what support looks like, not just as a one-time restricted grant but looking at longer-term grants, looking at unrestricted or less restricted grants, as you mentioned, to do the work freely and in the best way possible for the grantee.
You’ve been on both sides of the table, as a grant-maker as well as working with or for institutions seeking grant or partnership opportunities. That means that you have the dual vantage point of both perspectives. What are some of the biggest misconceptions you think funders have when it comes to the prospective grantees they’re considering? And how have you kept an open mind to possibilities and opportunities for evaluation when you’re thinking about grants and partners?
Daniels: That’s a really good question, because I have the advantage of having been a grant seeker and, before that, having roles in program design and implementation. Many of us in philanthropy come from this background, so we get a chance to think about the full spectrum of the work.
I think one of the biggest misconceptions I struggled with when I was on the other side, and we talk about this a lot in philanthropy, is that the definition of ‘capacity’ is frequently incongruent with what actually materializes into life-changing outcomes. To be clear, more money means more capacity and we [foundations] have to fund the work at scale. Sometimes we get stuck in the context of wanting to be accountable and responsible in determining whether or not an organization has ‘capacity.’
The Babcock Foundation decided a long time ago that we would primarily offer general operating (i.e., unrestricted) support grants, because it’s a way for us to honor the experience and wisdom of those who do the work at multiple levels, for the sake of ensuring that they have flexible dollars to finance their operations.
It really is a two-way relationship, and we get a chance to build more trusting relationships as a result. Considering the long term nature of the work, funders need to get beyond this misguided concept of, ‘Who does or doesn’t have capacity?,’ and instead move to asking themselves, ‘How do we support funding at scale?’
To keep an open mind, we say here at the Babcock Foundation, “Evaluation with a small ‘e.’” It’s less evaluation and more assessing the strength, experience, and authentic alignment of an organization as a means of thinking about how we fund that work, and how we sustain that funding for the work, such as opportunities to bring in other funding partners.
KMSG: That’s such an important distinction. Something that came up in a conversation with a nonprofit leader was that they were often asked by prospective funders to communicate impact. They said something that has stuck with me: ‘How do you evaluate or determine impact when your work is tied to prevention? It’s easy to talk about what happened, but how do we show what didn’t happen?’ It’s hard to create an infographic or one-pager explaining that something bad didn’t happen because of what we did provide. A lot of times, especially in movement-driven work or social justice driven work, that’s a really important perspective for a funder to have. If you’re only looking at what kind of demonstrable outcomes came out of this [grant or organization], then you’re missing the point – that’s reactive and responsive, not proactive or preventative.
Daniels: That’s right. We’ve been fortunate at MRBF because we have an intentional analysis and practice around racial equity. If you are lucky enough to be able to decide to do that work, you will often find – and I think it was Toni Morrison who reminded us of this – there is a strategy to diminish the lives of people, whether in the South or across the entire country, by those who don’t want certain people to flourish and do well. Their intention is to keep people responding to the fires of the day so that we can’t mount a strategy – to do the freedom work that’s going to liberate our communities generation by generation. That liberation could really allow people to experience the fullness of life and all the things that they deserve, but it’s limited because folks are intentionally creating all these barriers.
MRBF funds work at the ground level, the fundamental operating support, to give space for grantee partners and policy partners to be able to get beyond the crisis – and to be able to do the work that they are doing and know how to do – so that they can actually win and succeed. That’s how we actually get to success.
KMSG: I’ve worked at organizations that are trying to address these challenges, and also trying to get funding, and I know that that’s a very welcome perspective from a funder that’s making a real difference in how people feel like you show up as a partner.
As a follow-up to those challenges that grantee partners face, what are some of the challenges unique to the South when it comes to human rights, social justice movement building, and other components of the work that are different from the rest of the country?
Daniels: It’s really tough, to be honest with you. MRBF has been closely tied in our understanding of the relationship between democracy, creating flourishing economies for people and their families, and the knowledge that people have to do well enough to be able not just to survive, but to thrive and participate in democracy. When you assess all this, you realize that the South has been the worst actor.
The entire country has not behaved well, but the South in particular. If you look at the divestment from the public sector and what that has meant for fundamental rights in America you see worse consequences in the South. If you look at extraction economies, and what it means to steal labor, life, and future opportunities from folks as a part of the capitalistic system, you see that in the South at higher proportions and in a deeper way.
The South has experienced both of these amazing challenges around democracy – we’ve seen what’s happening in Tennessee and other places in real time. The South also has some of the most economically disparate communities in the country because of its legacy, background, and obtuse economic models. Simultaneously, the South has some of the most creative and innovative people and leaders who know how to get important and complex work done, to ‘stand in the gap’ as old folk used to say. I would argue that many of the innovations among democracy and freedom, and the ability for us to practice our humanity, come from Southern actors; people who understood the promise of this country.
MRBF is really proud to be a Southern actor constantly developing innovative approaches and strategies that sit inside our values around racial equity, power building, democracy and inclusiveness that we believe creates a path to a future that looks better for all of our people. We do want to elevate that we still struggle with disproportionate amounts of philanthropic funding in the South.
The latest data shows funding levels haven’t shifted much in the last 15 to 20 years, which puts us significantly behind other parts of the country with more philanthropic resources to leverage and enhance the work. We’re calling on and encouraging our partners around the country to continue to look to the South. Not only because we deserve our fair share of funding but to be sure that the country benefits from Southern leadership. We want to meet and match these challenges with the financial and the experiential resources necessary.
KMSG: Being a native Southerner, and working outside of the South, I hear comments about how the South takes more than it gives and extracts from the national economy. These comments are from people who I think would identify as being in favor of social progress, human rights and racial justice, yet there is a blind adherence to the idea that funding the South is charity rather than strategic funding. In doing so, an entire part of the country is written off. I often counter this view by asking ‘where do you think the majority of people of color in this country live? Where do you think the majority of Black people live? Where do you think the majority of LGBTQ+ community members live?’ It’s not in the places where people might automatically think. Racial, economic, gender, or LGBTQ+ justice can’t be addressed without the South being a critical part funding portfolios.
The South can’t be an afterthought, it has to be part of the initial investment and that message is stronger because it’s coming from an organization that knows and loves the South. How have you made the case to other social justice funders outside of the South that they should shift their strategy and focus toward the South?
Daniels: My mother raised me to believe it’s not polite to say ‘I told you so,’ but in many ways as you ask that question, I am having a bit of an ‘I told you so’ reflex. When we founded Grantmakers for Southern Progress, it was initially The Southern Organizing Working Group, and as the name would imply, it was a way for us to think about how to attract more resources to the South, particularly for racial and social justice organizing and power building.
We stated that everything that philanthropy wanted to make progress on was best found in the South, in terms of practice, strategy, innovation, lived experience and wisdom – all indications of being able to get the toughest work done with the fewest resources. Philanthropy should be flocking to the South because that’s what funders want; folks who know how to do the work and have found a way to do it with limited resources. MRBF has had the luxury of partnering with and funding folks for 70 years and we will continue to leverage our partners across the country, or anywhere else for that matter, who we believe can help make a case that the South has really smart people, organizations with capacity, and networks of organizations and leaders who’ve been working together for years and deserve investment – not just because it’s the smart and right thing to do. When we don’t invest in the South, we see what happens not only in the South but across the country.
Folks are making policy decisions to undermine the lives of children and families, communities, cities, and states, which are direct outcomes of divesting from the South and Southern leadership. We have luminaries – people emitting light, opportunity, and joy and creating successful paths to our humanity, those folks are here in the South doing that work in spite of the circumstances. We think the South represents the best investment opportunity this country has and we firmly believe that the South is how we’re going to turn this country around.
If we can get funders and philanthropy in deeper partnership and relationship with the organizations and the leaders on the ground, we can carve out the future that helps all of us live the lives that we deserve.
KMSG: That is music to my ears because the South is not 50 years behind, it is 50 years ahead, both in leadership and strategy. If these issues aren’t addressed they grow in power and they expand and – you see that with everything from national level elections, to disparities and outcomes; they only grow in power and they’re coming for your community at some point – and you ignore it at your peril.
We’re working with foundations that want to make grants that go beyond a single grant cycle – they want to help build infrastructure, and provide support in areas like communications, media or advocacy training. What are some other ways that funders could be more intentionally involved in the grant design to meet the needs defined by the grantees themselves?
Daniels: I’ll confess, in the past, the power dynamic between funders and grantees sometimes felt like we were giving something to our grantee partners that they couldn’t refuse. Now we’re stepping back to truly grasp what our partners need without them feeling pressured to take it. There are lots of areas where this can be applied. For example, communications and marketing support is one area that I’ve seen really surge over the last few years – from large national funders to local or regional funders like MRBF. I’m also seeing increased support for policy and advocacy for organizations that may not have access to research and data analysis that can add power to their work.
I think engagement from foundations is also showing up inside of the different forms of democracy practice. Funders are contemplating how to ensure people have access to information so they can participate in democratic practice, and how to protect the voter across the South and across the country.
We’re finding not only good opportunities to support that work, while staying within the bounds of a 501c3, in non-grant ways, but we’re also finding great partnerships with other funders who have similar interests so that we can scale some of that work, particularly across a multi-state region.
KMSG: Those are all excellent examples. I’ll end by asking what’s one area that you think more people should be paying attention to? And why do you feel like it’s critical that more people pay attention to it?
Daniels: I think most importantly, we are going to have to double down on our analysis, understanding and investments to support the protection of democracy as we have envisioned it. It is being attacked from every corner and from every angle, and I don’t believe we understand how much of a crisis we’re in.
I’m a student of history; I was not a history major but I paid close attention and we are very much in another cycle of developing fascism with the rise of the modern billionaire class and its impact on society. None of this is new.
I think philanthropy has a duty to analyze and resource, in the affirmative sense, against these attacks on democracy and freedom. The folks in the groups who are doing that work, who’ve been doing that work, and who know how to do that work have to get beyond our alleged fear of politics. Philanthropic foundations are very sophisticated organizations, and we know how to navigate and walk the line and get advice from our lawyers, advisors, and tax advisors, so that we don’t get ourselves in any trouble – so that [fear of politics] argument doesn’t resonate with me.
I think we have to step out and be bold and courageously support those who are on the front lines of that argument, in addition to those who are narrating that commitment: the media and folks operating a social justice context, we have to tell the story. We have to ring the bell and activate boots on the ground – organize people so that we can build the power around these racial equity goals and social justice goals that we have and that we’re really worried about.
That’s why MRBF has seen an absolute commitment to democracy, racial equity, and power building in our strategic plan and implementation. We’ve understood this for generations, and we want to make sure that we’re right there on the front lines with our folks as much as possible. Philanthropy nationwide has to really step its game up, both from a financial sense and how it uses its institutional power to do what needs to get done.
Credit:Source link
