Every few years, we come across a report quantifying philanthropy’s — how do I put this diplomatically? — tepid support for Native-led organizations.
For example, a 2019 Native Americans in Philanthropy and Candid study found that “from 2002 to 2016, large U.S. foundations gave, on average, 0.4% of total annual funding to Native American communities and causes.” These reports inevitably trigger a set of depressingly familiar questions, such as why foundation support continues to lag in a country where Native Americans account for roughly 3% of the U.S. population.
A few years later, another report presents similar findings and the disappointing cycle repeats.
The latest entry to this body of research is “On the Matter of Foundation Giving: Examining the Inequity of Private Philanthropy’s Investment in Native Communities.” Published by First Nations Development Institute, a nonprofit based in Fredericksburg, Virginia that seeks to improve economic conditions for Native Americans through grants, technical assistance, and training, advocacy and policy, the report aims to determine the scope of foundations’ support to Native organizations and causes from 2015 through 2022.
Unfortunately, readers will experience a strong sense of déjà vu. While overall foundation giving has increased to Native organizations and causes, “the overall share of philanthropic resources supporting Native organizations and causes, including Native-led organizations, is still less than 1%,” the report states. “In fact, roughly one-half of 1% of total foundation giving is going to support Native-led organizations.”
First Nations’ President and CEO Michael Roberts brought the report to my attention in early December, and I asked him if the findings left him feeling pessimistic.
“To have been in this field fundraising from foundations who, as a whole, give so little, one has to be an optimist,” he said via email. “You always have to believe that the tides will change and private foundations will wake up and realize the many benefits to having Native-led institutions in their portfolio. But yes, pessimism creeps in often — especially when 20 or 30 years of data show so little change in foundations’ investing behavior when it comes to Native-led institutions.”
With Roberts having set the table, here are three takeaways from First Nations’ report.
The data is “improved” — and “damning”
In their efforts to understand the total share of foundation dollars flowing to Native communities and causes, First Nations researchers measured the total dollars in foundation giving reported in annual Giving USA studies and plotted the percentage of these dollars awarded to Native organizations and causes by accessing data from Candid and Native Americans in Philanthropy’s Investing in Native Communities’ data map. (Researchers describe the data collection methodology in greater detail on pages four through six.)
“The report is not necessarily more comprehensive, but the data has improved,” Roberts said, pointing to the Investing in Natives Communities’ data map, which was unavailable to First Nations researchers when they conducted 2018’s “Growing Inequity: Large Foundation Giving to Native American Causes, 2006-2014.” “Although,” he continued, “as has always been the case, the data is based on private foundations’ self-reporting and their own classification.”
Two of the report’s data points stood out. First, in 2021, foundations awarded only $731 million to what the report defines as “Native causes.” And during that same year, foundations awarded a mere $173 million to a more limited subset of grants defined as “Native American Only.”
“‘The Native American Only subset numbers are still pretty damning,” Roberts said. “Why, in this day and age, when we have public conversations about social and racial justice, [is it] that the resulting actions of actually funding haven’t markedly changed in the last 20 or 30 years? What are foundations so afraid of?”
Related Inside Philanthropy Resources:
For Subscribers Only
There’s greater clarity into the causes of the funding disconnect
I suspect the publication of “On the Matter of Foundation Giving” will make Native leaders, development officers and philanthro-watchers ask, yet again, why foundations continually pass over Native organizations.
Fortunately, First Nations has dug into this crucial question with greater precision in recent years. A project called Reclaiming Native Truth: Dispelling Myths and Misconceptions suggests that philanthropy’s underwhelming support for Native communities stems from the general public’s awareness and beliefs about Native people. “The biggest ‘a-ha’ was that Native peoples are largely invisible to the general public,” Roberts said, “and what folks do know about them is largely misleading and their information comes from outdated K-12 textbooks and poor depictions in mainstream media.”
Findings from another report, “We Need to Change How We Think: Perspectives on Philanthropy’s Underfunding of Native Communities and Causes,” are “more damning,” Roberts said.
First Nations found that foundation decision makers have what he calls an “almost one-to-one correlation as the general population as it relates to the myth and misperceptions that they believe.” Interviewed funders described the perception within philanthropy that since Native communities have access to federal funds and what the report calls “casino money,” they don’t need philanthropic dollars. The report also cites the stereotype that Native Americans have squandered previous philanthropic support and can’t be trusted to handle additional funding.
“Honestly, that’s pretty disappointing from a group of folks who believe themselves to be more educated and socially aware,” Roberts said. “And it is folks’ unwillingness to become more informed that keeps them from investing in Native-led institutions.”
Lastly, another new First Nations report, “Native Americans and Board Representation on America’s Largest Foundations,” found that there are only 11 Native Americans sitting on the boards of the top 158 private foundations based on asset size. This lack of representation leads to diminished — or nonexistent — funding for Native organizations.
“We see from foundations such as the Northwest Area Foundation that when there are more Natives in board decision-making roles, more funding flows to Native-led institutions,” Roberts said. “In short, Natives need to be seen by foundations and not willfully ignored.”
The MacKenzie Scott Effect is real (and that’s a problem)
In a 2021 report looking at philanthropy’s pandemic-related giving across the previous year, the Center for Disaster Philanthropy and Candid found that of the $5.8 billion donated by high-net-worth individuals, $4.3 billion came from MacKenzie Scott. Remove her from the data set and the aggregate support from the remaining donors looks less compelling.
We see a similar dynamic in the First Nations report, which notes that Scott accounts for about 6% of total giving to Native communities and causes in the Investing in Native Communities data map. Take Scott out of the equation, and foundations’ underperformance is more conspicuous.
When I ran this idea by Roberts, I imagined him taking a deep breath before crafting his response. “Wow,” he said. “How to answer that question in a way that is not indicting. Oh hell, why not just call it out. For years, we have heard foundations share that funding in Native communities is so difficult, as if there should be an ‘easy button’ to fund Natives, but one is not needed for other complex issues like AIDS or climate change. And then MacKenzie Scott comes around and without fuss, without drama, and a small bit of effort to identify Native-led causes, funds effortlessly.”
Roberts’ perspective comports with our analysis of Scott’s approach. To the best of our knowledge, she didn’t have decades-long relationships with Native American nonprofits, but that didn’t stop her (and her advisors) from doing their due diligence and awarding historically large and unrestricted gifts to organizations across the country.
Many of Scott’s funding peers may admire her approach, but the data shows that beyond roughly two-dozen foundations cited in First Nations report, like Bush, Ford, Mellon, Kellogg, Hewlett foundations, Lilly Endowment, and New Venture Fund, a large subset haven’t emulated her by going outside of their comfort zones. “In the case of Native giving,” Roberts said, “it would be notably worse without Scott’s philanthropic giving.”
So what would Roberts say to board members and program managers in that subset of funders providing minimal or no support to Native organizations and causes?
“Let me share what I always share when I am asked by foundations who are thinking about but not necessarily investing in Native-led institutions — write a stinkin’ check,” he said. “I am convinced that once folks are connected at the hip with Native grantees, they will learn much more than all that research and field scans they might do before investing.”
