What Exactly Is Justice Grantmaking, Anyway? The Philanthropic Sector Has Thoughts

In the fall of 2021, there was a small-but-fascinating fracas reported in philanthropic media that focused on how Candid counts funding for racial justice work and whether or not its reported figures reflected previously used definitions of “justice” work. Around the same time, I was developing a research project examining whether different types of givers — legacy foundations, living donors, family foundations, community foundations, collaborative funds, etc. — were directing the greatest proportion of funding to justice work.

It suddenly dawned on me that I couldn’t proceed with my related research interests until I better understood how the philanthropic sector defined what, exactly, is “justice” grantmaking, either formally or informally; what is “equity” grantmaking, and what are other types of grantmaking that aren’t either of those things.

As I started reading more books on philanthropy, news coverage and reports by philanthropic-serving organizations (PSOs), I realized that part of the challenge for the sector as it seeks to properly fund justice and equity work is that there isn’t an established, collectively agreed-upon set of definitions for these terms. There is, however, a long history of people giving a lot of thought to these topics and a growing, informal consensus on how terms should be used. The first thing to do, I concluded, was to elucidate what I’ve been hearing on the matter and ask the sector, “Is that right?”

This is the central purpose of IP’s latest State of American Philanthropy report, titled “Philanthropy, Social Justice and Shifting Power.” The report is based on extensive reading of existing thought leadership on this topic, along with 22 original interviews with experts ranging across social justice funders, authors of widely discussed books on philanthropy, leaders of PSOs, and media observers critical of the sector.

The report proposes a “justice-regression grantmaking continuum” that could be used to analyze giving portfolios and advance public analysis of how much funding goes to what kind of work. The report provides a brief history of how various organizations and leaders have developed working definitions of justice and equity grantmaking (focusing especially on the central roles of PSOs and Candid), and then goes on to outline other types of grantmaking that experts commonly discuss. The continuum of grantmaking types proposed in the report are:

Justice grantmaking.
Equity grantmaking.
Pro omnibus (for all) grantmaking.
Backstopping government grantmaking.
Status quo grantmaking.
Self-serving grantmaking.
Regressive grantmaking.

The experts interviewed for this research did not necessarily give those particular names to grantmaking and giving practices, but we have named them in these ways in an effort to crystalize our thinking and succinctly describe somewhat amorphous motivations and activities.

Understanding justice vs. equity

One of the most distinct conclusions of the research is that there is growing consensus on basic definitions of justice and equity that aligns closely with those laid out by the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity (PRE): “Racial equity focuses on the prevention of harm and the redistribution of benefits within existing systems [emphasis added]. Racial justice focuses on power-building and transformative goals, explicitly seeking to generate enough power among disenfranchised people to change the fundamental rules of society.” While PRE’s work focuses on race, the working parameters of justice and equity are similar to language used by people focused on gender, immigration status, LGBTQ+ identities, etc.

One of the most important conclusions of this research is that concepts of “justice” in grantmaking are inextricable from analysis of power dynamics in philanthropy — how power is held, shared or given over by those who control the billions. The report has a chapter that delves into eight practices that seem to be most commonly associated with “shifting power.” Such hot-button topics as “trust-based philanthropy,” participatory grantmaking and movement-led collaborative funds are discussed in depth, along with perennial concerns such as board composition, transparency and donor directives.

There is a lot of important thinking from experts on these topics, but unlike definitions of grantmaking types, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus about which practices do the most to genuinely shift power to people working in communities. Still, the pros, cons and complicating factors associated with those practices are discussed at length.

Advancing the conversation

The final section of “Philanthropy, Social Justice and Shifting Power” states the intention of the researchers to grow public discussion of the frameworks proposed in the report and to pursue new thinking from the field.

As I note in the report, billionaires, corporations and their foundations make a lot of implicit and explicit claims about their commitment to equity and real social change. In the past few years in particular, philanthropists have often said they are directing significantly more resources to justice and equity and engaging in authentic efforts to shift power to communities. But are they really?

The final section of the report outlines how we intend, in the next stage of this inquiry, to “test drive” an assessment or set of measurement tools by using these frameworks to examine a few funders. This may take the form of a “report card,” an in-depth profile or something in between. Our belief is that the proposed frameworks have value, require a great deal more input from the field, and have the potential to be used in practical assessment tools. The report ends with a call for public input as we head into the next stage of research.

Inside Philanthropy has covered issues of justice, equity and power in philanthropy from its earliest days. Along with the sector itself, we have struggled to identify and apply universally accepted definitions of terms like justice and equity in grantmaking. We hope this research report prompts a wider discussion and moves the sector toward greater common understanding.

Michael Hamill Remaley is the editorial director of Inside Philanthropy’s State of American Philanthropy series, which has produced 34 in-depth white papers on a wide range of topics in the past two years. He is also a consultant to foundations and nonprofits.

Featured