This archive report was first published on 19 November 2019.
Philanthropy's impact is often hindered by a subtle yet pervasive issue: implicit bias. Despite growing numbers of donors and foundation staff members of color, the majority of philanthropic decision-makers remain middle- to upper-class white individuals.
As a result, prospective grantees from underrepresented groups face significant barriers to securing funding. Their proposals are often deemed 'risky' or 'unreliable,' while those from more affluent and well-connected individuals are viewed as 'sound investments' and 'scalable.' This disparity is evident in the vastly different treatment of proposals from a 40-something black woman with a decades-long record of success in her community versus a young affluent white man with a Harvard education.
Nonprofits with glossy proposals and connections to prestigious institutions are often prioritized over those with excellent reputations on the ground but less polished presentations. This perpetuates a cycle of inequality, where groups that are already marginalized are further disadvantaged in their pursuit of funding.
Furthermore, philanthropy's eligibility criteria and metrics for impact often reinforce the very inequities it seeks to address. Many of these criteria are 'facially neutral,' appearing nondiscriminatory on the surface but producing stark racial and gender disparities in giving.
For instance, reproductive rights grant-makers have historically limited their funding to protecting the legal right to abortion, neglecting the unique challenges faced by women of color in accessing abortion care. This has resulted in the exclusion of women of color from philanthropic support, exacerbating existing disparities.
