Access Philanthropy

news

Examination of environmental grantmaking practices reveals disparities

by

“Examining Disparities in Environmental Grantmaking: Where the Money Goes” examines the environmental grantmaking practices of 220 foundations that distributed more than 30,000 grants totaling $4.9 billion that were distributed over three years. 

The study, conducted by Yale School of the Environment professors Dorceta E. Taylor and Molly Blondell,  reveals disparities in environmental grantmaking that are related to region, the size of the grantees’ revenues, the sex and race/ethnicity of the grantees’ chief executive, and the type of organization being funded. 

The study also found that environmental justice organizations and those focused on people of color were at a disadvantage in the number of grants received and the grant dollars they were awarded.

The report argues that foundations must identify inequities in their practices and develop more equitable grantmaking processes.

Below is a copy of the Report’s Summary

Download the Report

  • Foundations are unevenly dispersed across the country, as is the funding awarded to grantees.
    The Northeast region has the densest concentration of foundations (87 were based there). However, most grants and grant dollars originated in the Pacific region; the Northeast region was second.
  • About 60% of the grant dollars originating in the Pacific region are awarded to grantees in that region. A similar percentage of the grant dollars generated in the Northeast stays in that region. Roughly 29% of the grant dollars generated in the Midwest stay in that region. The pattern reverses itself in the South-Central and Mountain regions. Most of the grant dollars generated in the Mountain and South-Central regions are sent to grantees in other regions.
  • The fewest foundations were based in the South Central and Mountain regions. Moreover, the two regions generated the fewest awards and the lowest grant dollars. The fewest grants were also disbursed to grantees in the two regions.
  • The study also found that foundations tended to fund organizations in their home state. Since most of the foundations were located in California, most of the grants and grant dollars originated in that state. Most of the grant dollars ended up going to California.
  • At a micro-scale, there is an urban bias to environmental grantmaking. That is, grantees in large cities and cities with dense clusters of foundations receive the most awards and the heftiest grant dollars. Ergo, the most grants and the highest grant dollars were generated in New York City. San Francisco was second in both categories.
  • Organizations’ revenues matter in their ability to attract funding. Foundations prefer to direct funding to organizations with significant revenues. Consequently, more than half of the grant dollars go to organizations with revenues of $20 million or more. Organizations with revenues under $1 million receive less than 4% of the grant dollars.
  • Funding to organizations was so lopsided that several environmental organizations obtained more funding than all the environmental justice organizations combined. For instance, the Sierra Club received more than $200 million in grants, almost five times what all the environmental justice organizations combined received.
  • Large mainstream environmental organizations are active participants in the process of hyper-concentrating grants. They have grant-writing teams that apply for many grants and build robust funders networks. They typically have scores of funders they rely on for grants. In contrast, smaller organizations tend to have fragile funding networks with few funders.
  • The organizations studied were split into 59 categories and two tiers. The 14 categories constituting Tier I received 64% of the grants and three-quarters of the grant dollars. Natural resources and conservation protection organizations were the most prolific grant-getters. The 45 categories of Tier II organizations received a mere 25% of the grant dollars. In other words, they received fewer grants that were smaller in size.
  • Foundations preferred to fund organizations working on the following issues – conservation, education, energy, ecosystems, and water resources. Though foundations lavished funding on these core topics, philanthropies also funded other issues such as social inequality, justice, empowerment, Indigenous rights, environmental justice, disaster preparedness and relief, housing and homelessness, food assistance and food insecurity, faith and religion, movement building, voter mobilization, workplace and workforce issues, and institutional diversity.
  • General support grants, highly coveted by grantees, were awarded frequently. However, over 80% of the general support grants went to White-led organizations. Moreover, less than 10% of the general support grants go to organizations focused on People of Color.
  • Male-led organizations obtained about 54% of the grants and more than two-thirds of the grant dollars. White-led organizations obtained more than 80% of the grants and grant dollars. Hence, White-male-led organizations received the most grants and grant dollars. White male-led organizations obtained about 48% of the grants and roughly 61% of the grant dollars awarded.
  • Though 56% of the foundations funded organizations primarily focusing on People of Color, less than 10% of the grants and grant dollars go to such organizations. Female-led organizations were more likely than male-led organizations to focus primarily on People of Color.
  • Roughly 46% of the foundations supported environmental justice organizations. People-of-Color-led environmental justice organizations obtained 71% of the grants and about 77% of the grant dollars.

Senior Grantwriters Needed

by

“Contract Position: Access Philanthropy seeks experienced grantwriters, who can work with a variety of nonprofit clients and write with clarity and dynamism. The writer will join a talented and growing team of writers, researchers and consultants who have spent decades working in nonprofit and funding communities.

About Access Philanthropy

Access Philanthropy Inc. (API) has been around for twenty years, working with (large and small) nonprofit and government agencies locally, nationally, and internationally.

API is known locally and nationally for close, knowledgeable working relationships with every client; great information’ great writing/messaging’ and great people working in a great team.

API supports organizations

  • Just starting up, or restarting their grants/fundraising efforts
  • That need a specific push or assistance (perceptions, grant schedules, messaging)
  • That need monthly support for grantwriting, fundraising plans, and just  getting back on track
  • That need specific grant and grantmaker information and strategies

API is one of the premier nonprofit fundraising support teams in Minnesota, providing prospect research, funding workshops, grant production, and organizational and fundraising planning

Qualifications: We Need People Who

  • Get to know a client’s work/needs quickly and thoroughly
  • Communicate well with clients by email, text, phone, Zoom, etc.
  • Are fearless of funders and their gatekeepers
  • Can persistently keep clients on track with grant tasks and deadlines
  • Can juggle multiple clients/deadlines
  • Support grant research for clients, such as deadlines and eligibility (support from API researchers)
  • Maintain accurate and detailed records
  • Work independently
  • Are of good humor and patient with clients and others
  • Have a history of working with Minnesota funders
  • And most importantly, consistently write clearly, succinctly, and engagingly.

What We Offer

  • This is an independent contractor position, not an employment position
  • Work with some of the most experienced and talented grant-thropists in Minnesota who really understand how to get heard and how to get funded
  • Work in a great team environment with some sensitivity to personal needs and quirks
  • Work from home

Work with GREAT clients

$50/hour minimum for the first year.  Generally, 20-25 hours/month, typically 5-7 hours/week

Next Steps

  • Send a cover letter, resume, sample of past clients, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, SAMPLES OF PAST PROPOSALS AND LETTERS OF INQUIRY
  • Let us know your availability – when are you ready to write
  • We aren’t crazy about telephone calls, but feel free to send a few smart questions.  See below
  • No deadlines, but we have clients waiting.

Send: cover, resume  and WRITING SAMPLES to [email protected]

Questions: [email protected]
Access Philanthropy is an equal opportunity employer. All applicants will be considered for employment without attention to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, veteran or disability status.”

News Rack

by

Rural Philanthropy
Rural Health Information Hub has some good insights in its new report, Challenges Rural Organizations May Face in Seeking Philanthropy Support.
Funder Affinity Groups
Funder affinity groups are ongoing open-facing collaborations of grantmakers interested in a specific area of grantmaking (health, environment, K-12 education, for example). Inside Philanthropy explains Affinity Groups:
A group or network of funders that come together around a shared interest.
Circles where funders can interact, and often collaborate, to maximize impact.
There is a funder affinity group for about every community or issue imaginable.
Most affinity groups are hosted by a larger organization, such as the Minnesota Council of Foundations. We thought we would jump on the wagon and provide a couple links for affinity groups sponsored by the national Council of Foundations and Minnesota Council of Foundations:
Implications for Grantseekers:
  • As a prospecting resource, lists of affinity group foundation members are a good way to find out which funders are interested in K-12 funding or homelessness.
  • Also as a prospecting tool, sometimes affinity groups will list the names of program officers who represent the foundation at the affinity group table. Good to know which program officers are serious about health issues.
  • Often affinity groups will talk about upcoming conferences or webinars. It’s good to know what issues are in the forefront of climate change funders and what kind of language and terms funders are using.

FUNDING NOTES May ’22

by

Target Foundation Funding Opportunity: Racial Equity Grants. This opportunity is up to $200,000 in general operating support, with an opportunity to request support over two years for BIPOC-led organizations. Four priorities:

  • Entrepreneurship and Small Business
  • Workforce Development
  • Housing
  • Asset Building

The Foundation supports organizations that improve the asset building opportunities available to traditionally marginalized communities, especially those that are engaged in work to increase financial inclusion, wealth building and overall financial health.

Mortenson Family Foundation is making three key changes to its grantmaking process:
  • Schedule a 30 minute call with Community Relationship Officer Ambar Hanson (for Expanding Opportunities for Children and Families grants) or Danyelle O’Hara (for Sustaining Environmental Systems grants).
  • Share updates on the outcomes you stated you want to accomplish in your 2021 application. No more budget reports.
  • If you have an annual report that includes last year’s outcomes, the foundation can use that report.[1]
  • We applaud the Mortensons for streamlining grantseeking for nonprofits.

This may confuse some applicants- there is a different process/contact depending on grant.
See: mortensonfamily.org/explore-partnership/

Huntington Bancshares (which merged with TCF) announced it wants to be the largest SBA funder in the Twin Cities market. No small feat, since climbing to #1 in SBA loans means creating A LOT of general banking business – both consumer and corporate lines. In turn, this means a lot more presence in the Twin Cities and lots more community investments, including Community Reinvestment funds. Consequently, more funding for community causes. Watch these folks, especially, Marcio Thompson, Community Development Relationship Manager.
Groundbreak Coalition – You’ll be hearing about these folks and the $2 billion they’re investing in thousands of BIPOC homeowners, businesses, rental units, and commercial developments in the neighborhoods most affected by the George Floyd protests. Th effort is led by representatives of major regional and national foundations, including the McKnight, Minneapolis, and Bush Foundations, our Twin Cities Mayors, several banks (PNC, Sunrise, Wells Fargo, US Bank, JPMorgan, and others), Chambers of Commerce, the Center for Economic Inclusion, Hennepin and Ramsey counties, and several private businesses.

Our Favorite Dysfunctional Financial Corporation – Our friends at Otto Bremer Trust are getting things together with the help of Ramsey County District Judge Robert Awsumb. Two big things:

  • The judge removed trustee Brian Lipschultz from the OBT board of trustees. Read the Star Trib article here.
  • The judge said the trustees could still move forward with the proposed sale of Bremer Bank, one of the things that started the relationship meltdown between the trustees and the bank official.

Lots of questions about the remaining trustees’ ongoing interest in selling the bank. But there’s no question that someone would be willing to pay big bucks for it, its presence in four states and its great relations with local (rural and urban) communities.

One of the top current bidders is Huntington Bank (the new TCF). Would Huntington keep up OBT’s community grants and outreach programs? They don’t have a history in their own banking practices, but maybe.

Meantime, the trust’s grantmaking operation remains remarkable, one of the best, if not the best, in Minnesota. April announcement of $7.3 million to 96 organizations.

James R. Thorpe Foundation, one of our favorite local funders, offers funding twice a year, once for youth and once for seniors. Youth requests are due June 15. Most grants are in the $6,000 to $12,000 range.
Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council  — This is the voter-approved State of Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, one of four funds created by the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. Deadline May 27, 2022.
G4GC’s Black Girl Freedom Fund (BGFF) is part of the Grantmakers for Girls of Color network. In only its second round of grants, BGFF awarded $4 million to 68 groups nationwide
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation issued its first Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Progress Report. Will such reports become a standard annual thing for major foundations? We hope so.

Minneapolis Foundation – has three news items on grants made or grants to come:

Patrick and Aimee Butler Family Foundation – another tried and true Metro area family foundation, the Butler Family Foundation continues to grow in financials and in wisdom. Although we aren’t crazy about the closed Invited Grants program, we understand this is a generations old family fund with its own family traditions. See the latest round of grants.

A Few Other National Opportunities:

US Agency for International Development recently announced plans to invest $50 million in global childcare infrastructure. USAID will invest $50 million in the World Bank’s Childcare Incentive Fund to expand global access to quality childcare and early learning programs.

People on the Move:

We welcome CEDRICK BAKER, the McKnight Foundation’s new Chief of Staff, who recently served as Chief of Staff for Saint Paul Public Schools. NA ENG, previously Communications Director at the McKnight Foundation, has been named new Chief Communications Officer at People for the American Way (PFAW).

Cryptocurrency and Philanthropy

by

An AP Philanthropy Landscape Report
May 2022

Stories about cryptocurrency have been showing up in business journals, consumer magazines, daily newspapers, and nonprofit publications. In March, some funders acknowledged one of the only ways to get relief money into Ukraine was via cryptocurrency. We sent AP Researcher Laura Wilson to find out more. She looped in folks from ImpactMarket and Alight (formerly American Refugee Committee) to talk about implications of Bitcoin,  Ethereum, and other crypto donations for nonprofits. You can read her report

New Ways of Giving

Starting as a thought experiment in the 1990s, cryptocurrency has slowly bled into everyday life, developing into a nearly-mainstream market. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, from 2015 to 2021 the percentage of Americans who personally invested in cryptocurrency rose from 1% to 16%; in 2021, 86% of Americans knew something about cryptocurrencies. Official counts vary but the consensus is, more than 10,000 cryptocurrencies exist today, with the most popular being Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Congress is in the process of developing legislation to regulate cryptocurrency within U.S. borders, and has already passed a tax provision to simplify reporting requirements. These changes have implications for the philanthropic space and the willingness of donors and other stakeholders to engage with cryptocurrency.

Blockchains Enter the Philanthropy Space

Charitable giving via cryptocurrency gained steam in 2013 with the establishment of the BitGive Foundation, the self-described “first Bitcoin and Blockchain charity.”  It rose sharply in visibility in 2017 when an anonymous donor established the Pineapple Fund and donated Bitcoin worth over $55 million to 60 charities.  Since then options for donating cryptocurrency have expanded:

Funding Missions with Cryptocurrency

Once the gifts are held by a donation management platform or nonprofit, more possibilities emerge.  The decentralized characteristic of all cryptocurrencies allows them to bypass country borders and traditional currency exchange rates.  To use cryptocurrency, nonprofits can either spend the digital asset  or convert it into fiat (traditional) currency.

Many nonprofits will “cash out,” since volatility makes these currencies a risky choice for long-term investment. Most currency exchanges around the globe work with only fiat currencies.  Some organizations, however, are working to build the capability to lean into the properties of cryptocurrency.

We spoke with representatives from ImpactMarket, and Alight who are collaborating to expand the practice and impact of Universal Basic Income (UBI) using cryptocurrency.

ImpactMarket created and maintains a platform for donors to give cryptocurrency. That currency is funneled directly to recipients in participating communities across Brazil, Nigeria, Ukraine, and India, many assisted by Alight. In communities where Alight doesn’t work directly, ImpactMarket partners with other nonprofits. The recipients of UBI funds choose how to use the currency, based on what is available in their area (“cash out” or use as is).

Their efforts haven’t been without challenges, like technology  and Internet access, as well as building trust with recipient communities.  But initial results are encouraging. Both organizations expressed hope for the future of the program, which seems to be fostering greater financial stability and long-term financial planning.

Without the existence of cryptocurrency, this type of global effort would be next to impossible.  Through ImpactMarket’s platform, donors can see exactly where their currency is headed and which communities they are supporting, creating a strong sense of donor-connectedness (GiveTrack works in a similar manner).  The global transfer of traditional currency is costly and time-consuming, while cryptocurrency has none of those associated fees.

Other ways of utilizing cryptocurrency on the nonprofit end include:

  • Working in philanthropic incentive programs for cryptocurrency miners and donators like RootProject, PinkCoin, and Impact Market.
  • Advancing donor involvement through the use of a reporting and voting system networked directly with donors (GiftCoin in partnership with Network for Good).
  • Using a blockchain to track the source and movement of goods as they move through supply chains (IBMs Blockchain for Social Good).

The Future of Crypto for Charity

One significant drawback to cryptocurrency is its negative impact on the environment. Blockchains require large amounts of energy to store and verify transactions. Bitcoin mining, for example, consumes 22 to 22.9 million metric tons of CO2 in a year. That’s comparable to Kansas City’s annual emissions.

Only 39% of the energy used to mine Bitcoin comes from renewable sources (mostly hydropower), with the rest produced through traditional fossil fuels. While there are proposed solutions, they have not yet been widely implemented.

Art museums, battered by the impact of the pandemic on attendance and income, first turned toward, then away from, selling NFTs, for these environmental reasons.  ImpactMarket uses Celo, the first carbon-neutral blockchain, which offsets its energy use by investing in tree planting and other carbon reduction projects. Alight’s decision to scale up its work with ImpactMarket will take environmental impact into account.

The anonymity of crypto donors is also problematic. Although transactions are recorded and tracked via IP address, the identity of the individual is not recorded.  This creates an obstacle in creating and maintaining personal relationships with donors. It also turns away organizations that avoid opaque funding sources.  In an interview with The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Erich Mische, Executive Director of Minnesota nonprofit Spare Key, said “We don’t want to get caught up in a situation where you get a knock on the door and find out that someone who gave you a significant donation is on some list that makes things problematic.”

AP is keeping a close eye on further developments, as the adoption of cryptocurrency in the philanthropic sector shows no signs of slowing down.

For more information on Access Philanthropy or suggest new ideas for a Philanthropy Landscape report, contact Steve Paprocki at [email protected]. To connect with researcher/author Laura Wilson, contact [email protected].