A report from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) offers insights into how philanthropy can support efforts to build and preserve democracy, with a focus on addressing entrenched issues of racial injustice and inequity in the field.

Based on interviews with leaders of 10 foundations deeply engaged in democracy-related issues and six experts on racial justice and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as research on more than a dozen other democracy funders, the report, Democracy-Focused Philanthropy: Choosing Operating Models for Deeper Impact (38 pages, PDF), provides a qualitative analysis of how funders engage in democracy-related philanthropy and the central role racial justice should play in that work. For each of the six dimensions of a philanthropic operating model in RPA’s Philanthropy Framework—resourcing, decision making, initiative, flexibility, programming, and relationships—the report outlines challenges and opportunities democracy-focused funders face.

In the area of resourcing, researchers found that most funders in the study tended to contract external partners for expertise, with a large proportion of overall funding flowing to grantees—who are often on the front lines of protecting and expanding democracy—which also gives them more agency, and that while those choosing to build in-house capacity have greater control, they need to recognize and address power imbalances and equity challenges. In the decision-making process, while a centralized model can offer more streamlined processes for executing strategy, a decentralized model is more conducive to advancing democratic causes, as it allows for more input from diverse sources. In the initiative dimension, the question of trust is fundamental to the choice between proactive and responsive approaches to racial justice and equity issues; democracy funders have begun to recognize that they need to invest not only dollars but also hours in listening to Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities in order to achieve the impact they seek.

In the area of flexibility, the report found that deploying funding to influence rapidly evolving institutions and issues—such as reproductive health policy—requires a more “creative and adaptive” approach, while a “disciplined” approach is more appropriate for strategies emphasizing fundamental and slow-to-change issues—such as voter turnout. As for programming, funders with greater risk appetite may take a “deep” approach, focusing on one area, while others take a “broad” approach, funding various issues and organizations and spreading around the risk but also risking superficial engagement. And in the relationships dimension, interviewees highlighted the need to build trust into grantmaking relationships through the provision of open-ended support. While “some foundations prefer to take solitary action in service of their mission,” the report states, “the default in democracy philanthropy should be to take a thoroughly networked approach: building funder collaboratives, empowering grantees, and collecting and utilizing community input on how best to make democratic systems more vibrant, inclusive, and just.”

“The research team was particularly struck by the insights around centering equity and racial justice in the work of philanthropies, and how much of a connection there was between how a philanthropy is led and staffed, and how that influences success in advancing equity,” the report’s authors note. “Trends among democracy funders interviewed by RPA reflect the intent to better center equity and racial justice in their work.”

(Photo credit: Getty Images/mcdustelroy)