andrew sears executive director, techmission [email protected] 617-282-9798 x101 how cncs can...
TRANSCRIPT
Andrew SearsExecutive Director,
617-282-9798 x101
How CNCS Can Address How CNCS Can Address Nonprofit Funding BiasNonprofit Funding Bias
Presentation Available at: www.urbanministry.org/cncsproposal
OutlineOutlineThere is a strong bias across race, class
and gender from foundation funding of nonprofits
While CNCS did not cause this bias, CNCS has the potential to counter this bias
Specific policy recommendations on how CNCS can counter the funding bias
Why TechMission Is Addressing Why TechMission Is Addressing This Issue?This Issue?
TechMission is an AmeriCorps national direct grantee that supports an at-risk corps
TechMission primarily supports Black and Latino-led nonprofits that are close to the community◦ We have seen how these nonprofits are experiencing
systemic issues with bias in funding of nonprofits◦ In a down economy, we are observing an increasing
bias towards large (i.e. White) organizations ◦ Many of our partner sites are struggling to stay
functional
Why TechMission Can Speak to Why TechMission Can Speak to This Issue?This Issue? TechMission’s organizational culture reflects lower class
culture◦ Nearly all of board and senior staff are Black, Latino and/or
come from low-income background◦ ED is White from lower class background◦ TechMission Corps AmeriCorps members are 63% Black and
Latino with 50% from low-income backgrounds TechMission has one of the widest spans of connection with
grassroots organizations (over 4,000 registered nonprofits)◦ UrbanMinistry.org being the Black/Latino counterpart to Idealist.org and
VolunteerMatch.org Leadership has extensive experience on writing about and
living out reconciliation across race, class and gender
Nonprofit Statistics and RaceNonprofit Statistics and Race1.4 million registered nonprofits in USA
◦1,169,000 White-led nonprofits◦138,600 Black-led nonprofits◦50,400 Latino-led nonprofits◦12,600 nonprofits led by other races
Source: Number of nonprofits from Independent Sector,Racial breakdown extrapolated based on survey results at:http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/executive_transition_survey_report2004.pdf
Funding Bias: Non-Whites Make Up 52.4% Of Funding Bias: Non-Whites Make Up 52.4% Of Poverty But Non-White Led Nonprofits Only Poverty But Non-White Led Nonprofits Only Receive 3% of FundingReceive 3% of Funding
http://www.slideshare.net/rosettathurman/race-matters-in-nonprofits-promoting-diversity-in-our-profession andhttp://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/executive_transition_survey_report2004.pdf
Nonprofit Leadership Does Not Reflect Nonprofit Leadership Does Not Reflect Class Community it ServesClass Community it Serves
Data show subjective estimates from the author based on educational levels and class assimilation rates of nonprofit leadership. 94% of leadership have at least bachelor’s degree with an estimated class assimilation rate of 90-95% based on living location & culture
Most Nonprofits Have a Different Most Nonprofits Have a Different Class Culture than Clients They ServeClass Culture than Clients They Serve
White Black Latino Asian
Upper
Middle
Lower
Leadership
Clients Clients Clients Clients
Indigenously Led Nonprofits Are Indigenously Led Nonprofits Are Most Affected by Funding BiasMost Affected by Funding Bias
White Black Latino Asian
Upper
Middle
Lower Leadership and clients
Funding and GenderFunding and Gender
From: http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/executive_transition_survey_report2004.pdf
Diversity Profile of CNCSDiversity Profile of CNCSBlack Latino/a White Asian Native
AmericanOther
USA Poverty 23.9% 24.8% 47.6% 3.7% 5.3% 1%
AmeriCorps 26% 15% 50% 2% 3% 4%
NCCC 86%
VISTA NO DATA (recommendation for study)
CNCS Staff NO DATA (likely reflects HHS staffing overall)
HHS Staff 16.8% 3.6% 55.8% 7.2% 16.6%
Leadership of Funded Orgs
NO DATA (recommendation for study)
Leadership of Service Sites
NO DATA (recommendation for study)
Sources: http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/ES-americorps-baseline.pdfhttp://www.abtassociates.com/reports/COMSRVS.pdf http://www.opm.gov/feddata/demograp/Table2mw.pdf
If CNCS Funding Profile Reflects If CNCS Funding Profile Reflects Nonprofit Leadership Profile in USA…Nonprofit Leadership Profile in USA…
Source: http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/executive_transition_survey_report2004.pdf
SummarySummaryIt is not CNCS’s fault that there is a funding bias
in the nonprofit community, but…CNCS has the ability to dramatically counter
nonprofit bias◦ Diversity profile of AmeriCorps members is strong:
creates diversity in leadership pipeline of nonprofits◦ Diversity profile of leadership of CNCS funded
organizations is unknown This is what is most important to counter funding bias Diverse leadership creates diversity throughout organizations
How Can CNCS Be A Force How Can CNCS Be A Force to Counter Nonprofit to Counter Nonprofit
Funding Bias?Funding Bias?
Why Does Only 3% of Foundation Why Does Only 3% of Foundation Funding Go to Nonprofits Led by People Funding Go to Nonprofits Led by People of Color?of Color?
Statistics are explained in the attached spreadsheet at: www.urbanministry.org/fundingbias
Two Issues for Policy ConsiderationTwo Issues for Policy Consideration
1. Lack of representation of FBOs can lead to Disproportionate Effects on Black and Latino-led organizations
◦ Less than 10% of AmeriCorps national direct organizations are faith-based
◦ Faith-based organizations represent about 1/3 of the social services sector
2. Cultural Bias◦ Standardized outcome measures and funding criteria can
unintentionally introduce a cultural bias into funding process just like standardized testing introduces bias in educational tests
Statistics are explained in the attached spreadsheet at: www.urbanministry.org/fundingbias
TechMission Experience: HHS & CNCSTechMission Experience: HHS & CNCS TechMission was a grantee (with CTCNet) with HHS Compassion
Capital Fund (02-06)◦ CCF grantee meetings were over about 75% people of color and about
50% FBOs TechMission is a National Direct grantee
◦ Grantee meetings seem to be about 10% people of color and less than 10% are FBOs
Differences between HHS CCF & CNCS◦ Different levels of outreach to FBOs and communities of color◦ Different levels of outreach to ensure that FBOs and communities of color
are adequately represented among grant reviewers◦ HHS follows Charitable Choice legislation respecting religious hiring rights◦ AmeriCorps does not seem to follow Charitable Choice and requires non-
discrimination on sexual orientation◦ Our estimate is that differences in hiring rights results in a loss of more
than 50% of FBOs which eliminates 1/3 of Black-led nonprofits We recognize that this is just our non-statistical estimates based on
limited meetings and discussions with partners
Policies Recommendation 1Policies Recommendation 1: Reach out to : Reach out to Indigenously-Led Faith-Based NonprofitsIndigenously-Led Faith-Based Nonprofits
Policies that restrict funding faith-based organizations create an unintentional bias toward White-led organization
How it works◦ About 2/3 of Black-led nonprofits are in churches or other
faith-based organizations◦ About 2/3 of White-led nonprofits are secular◦ Limited funding of faith-based organizations makes White-
led nonprofits twice as likely to get fundedIt is Critical to Continuing efforts of Office of Faith-
based & Neighborhood partnerships
Statistics are explained in the attached spreadsheet at: www.urbanministry.org/fundingbias
Policies Recommendation 1Policies Recommendation 1: Reach out to : Reach out to Indigenously-Led Faith-Based NonprofitsIndigenously-Led Faith-Based Nonprofits
Invest significantly in recruiting:1. Grant reviewers from under-represented
populations2. Organizations led by minority groups that are
under-representedIntentionally prioritize intermediaries that
show history of success in placing members in minority-led nonprofits◦ Consider expanding Native American focused
initiative to include minority-led grantees with greater than 50% minority placements
Policies Recommendation 2Policies Recommendation 2: Use : Use Diversity Profiles for All CNCS Diversity Profiles for All CNCS ApplicantsApplicants Recommend CNCS require all funding recipients to
complete diversity reporting form as part of applications Recommend CNCS publicly list their own diversity reporting
form with the cumulative results of who they funded and who the members are
Recommend Diversity reports carry similar weight as financial and other outcome reports and should be listed in CNCS’s annual report◦ Diversity profiles & reports become an approximate measure for many
of the subjective elements that are hard to measure in other outcomes◦ Diversity reports could be used to provide suggested corrective actions
to grantees that significantly under-represent the populations they are serving
◦ Diversity provides could help CNCS adapt its funding portfolio to better include under-represented groups
Comparing Bias in Standardized Testing Comparing Bias in Standardized Testing to Bias from Standardized Outcomesto Bias from Standardized Outcomes
Racial Bias◦White or Asian: 150-200 point increase
Income Bias◦30 points per $10,000 of family income
The cultural bias of the SAT test is well documented and understood
The bias from standardized outcomes is similar but less well understood
Source: http://www.maec.org/natstats.html & http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/testing_facts.pdf
Understanding Nonprofit Funding BiasUnderstanding Nonprofit Funding Bias
Racial Bias◦ 97% of foundation funding goes toward White-led
nonprofitsIncome Bias
◦ Estimated 95% of leadership of nonprofits is culturally middle class
Gender Bias◦ While 58% of nonprofit executives are women, the
median income of a nonprofit led by a man has twice the median income of a nonprofit led by a woman
The Cultural bias of foundation funding is well documented, but not well understood
Sources: http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/executive_transition_survey_report2004.pdf &http://greenlining.org/publications/pdf/339 The class statistic is explained on a previous slide
Dominant Culture Outcomes vs. Dominant Culture Outcomes vs. Non-dominant OutcomesNon-dominant OutcomesDominant Culture (middle & upper class value)
Value Big Organizations Almost no weight given to
leadership being close to the community◦ Community support = funding
Analytical & Quantitative◦ Nonprofit “SAT Scores”
Purely Objective Criteria Secular Focused
Non-Dominant Culture (lower class value)
Cost effectiveness Is leadership close to the
community?◦ Race of leadership
(staff/board)◦ Class background of
leadership◦ Neighborhood they live in
Holistic◦ Has a Life been Changed
Subjective Faith-Based & Secular
Ways to Counter Bias of Ways to Counter Bias of Standardized OutcomesStandardized OutcomesRigorous standardized outcomes without
rigorous demographic tracking will result in the same type of bias for funding as exists for standardized tests
Follow No Child Left Behind as an example◦Requires rigorous outcomes◦Track demographics equally rigorously◦Result is that people are held accountable and
social injustice is exposed“If you can't measure it, you can't manage
it.” - Peter Drucker
Sample Diversity Profile FormSample Diversity Profile Form
Board & Staff Asian Black Latino(a) White Other TotalF M Tot % F M Tot % F M Tot % F M Tot % F M Tot % F M Total %
BoardChair/President of Board 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1 17% 0 0% 0 1 1 17%Other Board Officers 0 0% 1 1 17% 1 1 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2 2 33%Other Board Members 0 0% 2 1 3 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1 3 50%Subtotals 0 0 0 0% 2 2 4 67% 0 1 1 17% 0 1 1 17% 0 0 0 0% 2 4 6 100%
Management StaffExecutive Director 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1 33% 0 0% 0 1 1 33%Other Management or Supervisory Staff 0 0% 1 1 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1 2 67%Subtotals 0 0 0 0% 1 1 2 67% 0 0 0 0% 0 1 1 33% 0 0 0 0% 1 2 3 100%
Other StaffProgram Staff 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 1 4 27% 0 0% 3 1 4 27%Support Staff 1 1 7% 2 1 3 20% 1 1 7% 3 2 5 33% 1 1 7% 7 4 11 73%Subtotals 1 0 1 7% 2 1 3 20% 0 1 1 7% 6 3 9 60% 1 0 1 7% 10 5 15 100%
Volunteer/AmeriCorps Members at Sites 1 1 2 7% 7 4 11 38% 1 2 3 10% 9 4 13 45% 0 0% 18 11 29 100%Subtotals 1 1 2 7% 7 4 11 38% 1 2 3 10% 9 4 13 45% 0 0 0 0% 18 11 29 100%
Grand Total 2 1 3 6% 12 8 20 38% 1 4 5 9% 15 9 24 45% 1 0 1 2% 31 22 53 100%
Organization Population Served 47 39 86 6% 304 256 560 42% 291 248 539 40% 37 41 78 6% 37 33 70 5% 716 617 1333 100%Program Population Served (if applicable) 2 4 6 1% 125 103 228 53% 107 59 166 39% 2 2 4 1% 15 12 27 6% 251 180 431 100%
From Associated Grantmakers of Massachusetts: http://www.agmconnect.org/cpf/CPF_Diversity_Form.xls
Example Diversity Profile: Example Diversity Profile: TechMissionTechMission
Policies Recommendation 3Policies Recommendation 3: Revise Funding : Revise Funding Criteria to Better Reflect Community ValuesCriteria to Better Reflect Community Values
Diversity profiles become an objective measure to approximate subjective elements that are hard to quantify
Example from TechMission’s Grant Applications◦ 20% of Grant Application Weight: Is leadership close to the
community as reflected in their diversity profile and strategy? Use diversity profile form and grant questions
◦ 20% of Grant Application Weight: Is organization serving the highest risk community? Require detailed criteria to distinguish at-risk vs. high risk, etc.
Policies Recommendation 3aPolicies Recommendation 3a: Revise : Revise Funding CriteriaFunding Criteria
Consider “Minority Owned Business” Preference for Nonprofits◦ If the Government gives preference to minority owned
businesses in contracts, shouldn’t that be a consideration with nonprofits?
◦ Nonprofits that closely reflect the demographics of the communities they are serving should be given preference (affirmative action in nonprofit funding)
CNCS as Nonprofit Equivalent of Small Business Admin◦ Demographics of CNCS’s funding portfolio will be under
increased scrutiny in the same way the SBA ◦ The rapid increase in number of nonprofits is comparable to the
increase in small businesses. ◦ Is CNCS adopting strategies similar to the SBA fostering the
growth of these small nonprofits?
Policy Recommendation 3b: Revise Funding Policy Recommendation 3b: Revise Funding Criteria Related to Cost Per Member Criteria Related to Cost Per Member IncentivesIncentives
CNCS funding process currently encourages a high cost per member◦ Higher match means more likely to get more funding from CNCS◦ Most 1,000+ member grantees have a cost per member around $30k-
40k per member◦ Under the Serve America Act, growth from 75,000 members to 250,000
@ $40k/member would require $7 billion in growth annually in the nonprofit sector
◦ $7 Billion of nonprofit sector growth among CNCS grantees is not realistic in the current economy
◦ Requiring high match creates a bias toward more elite organizations which may not reflect community demographics
◦ FBO’s do not include much of their potential match because doing so creates hiring and faith restrictions on those funds
Policy Recommendation 3b: Revise Funding Policy Recommendation 3b: Revise Funding Criteria Related to Cost Per Member Criteria Related to Cost Per Member IncentivesIncentives Emphasis on high cost per member creates a systemic bias
◦ Since 97% of foundation funding goes to White-led upper-middle class nonprofits, other nonprofits have difficulty finding match
◦ High cost per member programs have much more funding to track and record rigorous quantitative outcomes further increasing their chances of funding
◦ Encourages high overhead and upper-middle class, elite organizations
Solution◦ Need stronger weight on measures of efficiency and diversity
profile in funding and less weight on total cost per member (high match)
◦ Move toward quantitative measures of social value beyond just funding match to show social return on investment (RoI)
SummarySummaryThere is a strong bias in the nonprofit
funding community toward White, elite nonprofits ◦That is not CNCS’s fault
CNCS needs to implement policies to counter this bias1.Intentionally pursuing indigenously-led FBOs2.Use diversity profiles in applications &
outcomes3.Need to revise funding criteria to offset
systemic bias
Summary: Revisions to Funding Summary: Revisions to Funding CriteriaCriteria
1. Give diversity profiles significant weight in funding decisions.
2. Give preference for nonprofits that are the equivalent of a “minority owned” business
3. Develop funding strategies to foster growth of new nonprofits similar to the government’s small business strategies
4. Reverse incentives for programs to have a high cost-per-member with incentives focused on efficiency with high social RoI
Presentation Available at: www.urbanministry.org/cncsproposal