Beyond Blogging
Expert Analysis · Updates · News
Scott Curran spoke with Joan Garry on the Nonprofits are Messy podcast, where he offered “practical advice on how to strengthen an organization’s core, the importance of having a clear strategic vision, and the role of leadership in driving success.”
Listen here!
Beyond Advisers was featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, where Scott Curran provided advice on business success.
Here's how to strategically create and follow through on your most important business goals.
BY ROLLING STONE CULTURE COUNCIL
NO MATTER WHAT industry you’re in, business success starts with identifying short- and long-term goals. However, it can be tricky to figure out exactly how to set and achieve those objectives.
To help, Rolling Stone Culture Council business leaders share their goal-setting strategies and why these methods are effective. Follow their recommendations to help you refine your approach to achieving your business goals.
When it comes to goals, the most important thing is cascading the company’s goals to all levels of the organization and making them relevant. The two key words are “cascading” and “relevant.” Make sure everyone has the goals, and make sure they relate directly to what they do. – Brendan Keegan, bFEARLESS Racing
At our company, we implement a sprint strategy common to technology teams across our entire organization. Our sprints define monthly team goals to then identify and assign the corresponding tasks. As a tech company, we find this solutions-oriented approach effective to work in unison while maintaining individual accountability — the puzzle formed by the puzzle pieces. – Justin Fredericks, Art House
Be realistic. If you have a new goal to reach, make sure that you look at all the problems it will take to reach your goal. The process of identifying the problems and solving the problems will help with the strategy to achieve the end goal. – Adam Rumanek, Aux Mode Inc.
Start with the end in mind. I am a visionary, so vision-setting, brainstorming and evaluation sessions help me map out objectives for possible planning or development. I suggest having a routine to create space for you to center in on how you can push your goals forward. – Sonia Singh, Center of Inner Transformations
As a leader, I follow a process of setting SMART goals — or ones that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. This involves team brainstorming sessions to align on objectives, regular progress reviews and adjustments as needed. This structured approach ensures clarity, accountability and continuous improvement, driving sustained business success. – Stephen Nalley, Black Briar Advisors
Sometimes, leaders get into the trap of trying to rework and maintain an idea, strategy or project, and they lose sight of what parts they may need to let go of to advance. Knowing when to let something go isn’t giving up; it’s opening the door to enhance your mission and allow space for new resources. – Cynthia Johnson, Bell + Ivy
My goal-setting process involves gathering team input for real-world needs, defining SMART goals collaboratively and tracking progress with regular check-ins. This approach builds ownership, increases buy-in and boosts success rates. It’s a win-win for both leaders and teams. – Kristin Marquet, Marquet Media, LLC
Implement annual SMART goal setting organization-wide, for specific departments and individually. Then hold mid-year check-ins for those goals (and also for performance) as well as a year-end review of both the SMART goals and individual performance. This has proven to be an ironclad success strategy for our team and for our clients. – Scott Curran, Beyond Advisers
A regular meeting cadence is essential for any business to stay on task. During these meetings, company stakeholders can discuss any delays or issues in hitting goals and other targets. This can help ensure product updates and launches stay on track. – Dustin Eide, CanPay
Market opportunities are often simply unmet needs. Find people with an expertise you don’t have and ask what unmet needs they see. Ask why — in their view — these needs remain unmet. Then ask your stakeholders: What strategic advantages do we have that might allow us to address these needs? The overlap between clear need, strategic advantage and available capacity is a recipe for success. – Jed Brewer, Good Loud Media
I ask what is missing. Then, I assess the cost and time to implement and weigh that answer against what else I could do with that time and money for the overall good of the business and whether it really helps our mandate, our clients and ourselves. This process helps me discern what is best not only for now but also for at least the next two years. – Susan Johnston, New Media Film Festival®
First, you need to identify the main goal or vision that your company is trying to achieve long term, and then the goal for the year follows that. Each subgoal is in support of that higher goal. For example, when asked if Southwest Airlines could serve chicken salad aboard its flights, its then-CEO Herb Kelleher replied that doing so would not serve their goal of being the lowest-cost airline. – Zain Jaffer, Zain Jaffer Foundation
Beyond Advisers’ Founder and CEO, Scott Curran, was quoted in The Hollywood Reporter's piece, “DEI Is Not DOA — At Least Not Yet,” alongside Stacey Abrams, Ishan Bhabha Amanda Kelso, Julie Ann Crommett, Maikiko James, and Montea Robinson.
The ongoing debates and legal challenges around DEI are shaping the future of how organizations support underrepresented communities. As Gary Baum notes in the article, the current climate of anxiety and legal scrutiny is real, but doesn't need to deter the underlying work.
As Scott shared, "The higher the profile, the greater the likelihood you’ll be targeted.” This is especially true in celebrity, corporate, and big brand philanthropy.
However, it's important to remember that there are ways to continue this work compliant with the law (evolving though it may be). And it is imperative to remember that these challenges are part of a broader struggle for equality and inclusion that has always been part of the American experience and always will be.
While there may be obstacles, the commitment and resilience of those dedicated to inclusive initiatives remain strong. Together, we can continue to push for progress and ensure that our efforts to support underrepresented communities remain robust, effective, and compliant with the law.
Check out the full article below!
Conservative activists are taking aim at race-based grants and programs designed to help members of marginalized communities. Will philanthropies soon find themselves in the crosshairs?
The DEI dominoes started falling — or at least wobbling — last summer. There was a Supreme Court ruling all but gutting affirmative action on college campuses. In Hollywood, there was the mass exodus of diversity officers — at Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney, Netflix and the Motion Picture Academy. Meanwhile, conservative activists launched a barrage of anti-DEI lawsuits with corporations in the crosshairs, like the one filed in March against CBS and Paramount by former (and possibly future) Trump aide Stephen Miller on behalf of a white SEAL Team writer who was allegedly denied advancement because of DEI policies.
Philanthropic work so far has remained largely unscathed by the DEI battles, but that may soon change. In June, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a judgment that could — if it sticks — upend how organizations administer grants and how they decide who should get them. The suit — brought by Edward Blum, the same activist behind the Supreme Court college admissions case — maintained that an Atlanta-based venture capital firm called Fearless Fund was acting in a discriminatory manner by using its nonprofit arm to administer a grant program that specifically helps Black female business owners. That sort of race-based philanthropic activity, Blum argued, was unconstitutional. The 11th Circuit agreed.
Those who operate in Hollywood’s grant-making realm are mostly taking a wait-and-see approach, generally viewing the Fearless Fund decision as narrow and preliminary. “The ruling is disappointing,” says Sundance Institute acting CEO Amanda Kelso, “however, we are confident this issue will not be settled by this case or this court.”
Still, some organizations have begun assessing their rainy-day legal fund capacities and scrutinizing verbiage on their websites. (For example, language explicitly referencing race might be euphemistically adjusted to “underrepresented communities.”) “There are a lot of companies that are doing audits,” explains Julie Ann Crommett, who worked in-house at Disney and now heads the Georgia-based DEI consultancy Collective Moxie.
For now, the biggest threat may be perception. “There’s a difference between legal reality and legal bullying,” notes Stacey Abrams, the two-time Georgia gubernatorial candidate who is now a founder of the advocacy group American Pride Rises. “Stephen Miller and Ed Blum aren’t winning. They’re whining. Still, their intention is to have a chilling effect, and they’ve had some success. They’ve convinced reasonable organizations, including within the entertainment industry, to do a cost analysis about being sued.”
Washington, D.C.-based attorney Ishan Bhabha, who advises entertainment and media firms on their DEI programs, agrees. “I have many clients who think DEI is ‘under attack,’ and it makes them nervous. The climate of anxiety is real,” he says, noting that such nervousness is the point of these suits. “They want to create a fear-based environment that you might be next to be sued. If people are concerned, maybe they’ll pull back.” That’s particularly true of the more conspicuous philanthropic efforts. Says consultant Scott Curran, whose background includes work as general counsel at the Clinton Foundation, “The higher the profile, the greater the likelihood you’ll be targeted.”
Others, though, don’t think these attacks will ultimately succeed, defiantly vowing to carry on no matter what Miller, Blum and their compatriots throw at them. “People who have dealt with historical oppression don’t have anything to lose,” says Maikiko James, senior director of programs at Women in Film. “Sure, the terrain can get rockier, and there’s obviously real threats. But for those of us who care about this, we aren’t going to give up.” Montea Robinson, CEO of Ghetto Film School, adds that DEI advocates, whether administrators or donors, “are ambitious and optimistic — but also pragmatic. They aren’t going to be easily swayed.”
Beyond Advisers was featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, where Scott Curran provided advice on innovation.
Experimenting with a new product or service shouldn’t come at the expense of your core business.
BY ROLLING STONE CULTURE COUNCIL
IT CAN BE said that all businesses are in the business of making money. Regardless of what product they sell or what service they provide, all businesses need to make money in order to survive and, hopefully, thrive. But there’s another component businesses need in order to thrive, at least in the long term: innovation. If businesses don’t innovate or improve upon their current offerings, they may not ever grow or reach their true potential.
However, innovation can be risky, as not all ideas will be profitable or accepted by customers. To find that balance between making money in order to survive and making room for innovation, business leaders should consider the following eight tips from the experts of Rolling Stone Culture Council. Here, they discuss the key to balancing innovation with the financial need to stick with what works, ensuring business leaders can still pay the bills.
When resources are limited, focus your innovation efforts on what is adjacent to what is already working well. Bigger bets on wilder innovations should be reserved for times when you can better afford the risk. Always remember that more or bigger isn’t always better — better is always better. Innovate on what makes good great, not net new or risky. – Scott Curran, Beyond Advisers
Innovation must be based on tangible customer needs. The key is to find out what your customers’ biggest problem is and figure out how to solve it — before you create the solution. That way, you reduce financial risk while ensuring your end product will be well-received by your customers. – Dustin Eide, CanPay
It is critical to maintain the perspective that this work is a collaboration between stakeholders and the organization. Do you have a sense of your stakeholders’ appetite for innovation? The areas of innovation that would be exciting to them? Past that, developing an institutional ability to prove the viability of new concepts before making a major investment is key. – Jed Brewer, Good Loud Media
Effectively balance your resource allocation to optimize your business with the 80/20 rule. Create an organizational structure that supports innovation by allocating 80 percent of resources to the core business and 20 percent to developing new products. As new projects progress and evolve, remaining flexible to scale and drive new revenue is essential. – Michael Klein, cannabisMD
There is something called your “bread and butter” — the incremental money that pays your bills. Start there. Then, analyze your choices for innovation to implement by the approximate cost of time and money. Next, prioritize them based on whether or not you can handle that innovation’s delivery relatively easily if successful. – Susan Johnston, New Media Film Festival®
Have a portfolio approach and make sure innovation brings in incremental revenue and business. If taking a big step, try to make sure there are paying customers who need and want the new service or product. If possible, do some beta testing with targeted customers to increase your chances of success. – Brian Framson, Citrus America Inc.
Businesses should set aside a portion of their budget for innovation, ensuring it does not disrupt their primary income streams. By regularly evaluating both new and existing initiatives, companies can integrate cutting-edge advancements without jeopardizing their financial health. This approach allows for sustainable growth and adapting to market changes while still paying the bills. – Dan Serard, Cannabis Creative Group
Balancing innovation with financial stability requires strategic foresight. Setting clear objectives, performing thorough market analysis and staging incremental pilot projects ensure that innovation efforts are sustainable and do not compromise your ability to meet financial obligations. – Matthew Miller, Orlando Informer
Beyond Advisers was featured in Barron’s Penta magazine, where founder Scott Curran discussed how private foundations can drive action in ways that are potentially much faster and more efficient than corporate-affiliated foundations.
By Geoff Nudelman
At first glance, the connection between insurance and preventing domestic violence might seem vague, but leaders from the philanthropic arms of major carriers say they can play a crucial role in solving this systemic issue.
“We view domestic violence as a critical social determinant to community health,” says Lucia Corral Peña, chief program director at Blue Shield of California Foundation.
Several large insurance carriers have decided to use their standing in the public health and financial spaces to take on the underlying issues that contribute to domestic violence. Generally, the industry views the issue as rooted in other, broader problems such as racism, education disparities, and income inequality. Though the issue on its own could benefit greatly from more attention from private and individual donors.
According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 10 million Americans every year experience some form of physical abuse. Further, it is estimated that more than 48% of Americans will experience psychological abuse in their lifetime. Domestic violence can take on many forms beyond physical or mental harm, leading to debilitating situations.
In March, Blue Shield of California’s foundation announced a US$5.2 million investment as a package of 15 grants to support specific organizations working on systemic public health issues that link to domestic violence such as economic mobility, data collection, and restorative justice. The organization operates as its own entity, separate from Blue Shield of California the company, and follows its own strategic path.
At Allstate Foundation, relationship abuse program officer Sharisse Kimbro leads the organization’s work on preventing domestic violence. The foundation operates separately from the company, but she notes that “there are always ways to marry what the foundation is doing with the company strategy, and that the foundation informs the business where it makes sense to do so.” The foundation actually sees domestic violence as a cyclical financial abuse issue as much as it is one of public health.
About “94% to 99% of those who report domestic violence also report a misuse of finances,” she says. Meanwhile, “finances become a big issue as survivors have very little financial resources.”
Allstate Foundation’s work on the issue began more than 20 years ago with basic financial literacy courses for survivors, and Kimbro says that helped the foundation understand what survivors needed in terms of economic support.
The foundation puts a particular focus on the fact that domestic violence will disproportionately affect people of color. A 2020 Institute for Women’s Policy Research report noted that more than 40% of Black women alone will experience physical violence by an intimate partner during their lifetime.
According to Allstate Foundation, the nonprofit has given more than US$90 million to aid survivors of relationship abuse since 2005. Last year, the foundation awarded nearly US$400,000 in grants for wellness programs to nonprofits serving BIPOC survivors of gender-based violence.
Insurance-linked foundations have stepped in to help as “private philanthropy can’t meet the need alone,” Peña says. Domestic violence has long been a siloed issue and a private matter rather than one that can benefit from being acted upon more publicly, she says.
What private philanthropy and individual donors can do is drive action in ways that are potentially much faster and more efficient than a corporate-affiliated foundation.
“Private foundations supporting existing work and causes are more effective (than working through a corporate foundation),” says Scott Curran, CEO of Chicago-based Beyond Advisers.
Curran and his team work with multigenerational family foundations and other affluent givers who need guidance in directing their philanthropic efforts. Domestic violence is an example of an issue that benefits from resources put toward awareness and prevention, in addition to a number of similar downstream issues such as public health, housing, and more, he says.
Large-scale gifts by donors such as Mackenzie Scott and Melinda Gates are potential game-changers in the way private philanthropy supports domestic violence, especially as an issue that disproportionately affects women and girls, Curran says. Gifts such as these, which directly benefit an organization working toward domestic violence solutions, often produce faster, more positive results as opposed to trying to create a brand new initiative.
“Sometimes, clients will have a unique competitive advantage [to start something new], but philanthropy, like so many other fields, is competitive and it’s important to look at existing work,” Curran says.
For Blue Shield of California Foundation, Peña agrees that outside philanthropy can play a role in elevating the narrative further.
One of these priorities, according to Peña and Kimbro, is that the story around domestic violence and supporting survivors needs to change.
“A lot of the narrative is trauma-focused rather than lifespan-focused, and there’s room to invest all along the way (in a survivor’s journey),” Kimbro says.
Last May, the Biden administration released an action plan on gender-based violence that stemmed from the 2021 passage of a bill to further increase essential service support for crime victims. Peña thinks this could elevate the conversation within philanthropy.
“It will help us consider how we might do something more or improve the way that we respond,” she says.
Scott Curran spoke with Kevin Tibbles and Amy Goldberg on the Believe in People podcast about his career trajectory that led him to philanthropy, and how Beyond Advisers now assists organizations of all types maximize their own social impact. Listen below!
An organization does not need to be a nonprofit to make positive change in the world! Scott M. Curran recently spoke with Gregory Nielsen on the Nonprofit Vision podcast about the wide spectrum of organizations between nonprofits and for-profits, and how they all have the capacity to do well while doing good.
Scott Curran spoke with Joe Gagnon, host of the Chasing Tomorrow Podcast, where he shared insights into his journey from practicing corporate law to dedicating his life to helping nonprofits, the private sector, and social enterprises maximize their social impact—because all of us are hardwired for good. Listen to the episode below!
Beyond Advisers was featured in Barron’s Penta magazine, where founder Scott Curran discussed the changing philanthropic landscape and countless opportunities for meaningful change.
By Geoff Nudelman
Even amid two international conflicts and an upcoming U.S. presidential election, some philanthropic leaders are optimistic about the direction of overall giving through 2024.
Penta spoke with heads of several non-profits and leading philanthropists to gauge whether charitable giving will continue its reported slump from 2023 or rebound alongside renewed interest in various political and economic issues.
“Contrary to what some might expect, philanthropy has had resilience in these times,” says Stacy Huston, executive director of Sixdegrees.org, a youth empowerment non-profit based in Virginia founded by actor Kevin Bacon in 2007.
Huston’s view echoes recent data from the biennial Bank of America Study of Philanthropy published last year, which found that while affluent giving is largely down, the value of the average philanthropic gift is up 19%, surpassing pre-pandemic levels.
The notion of what these gifts look like is changing, and is partially responsible for the growth. Philanthropy can be executed through more avenues than ever, whether through celebrity association, tech titans stewarding large endowments, or athletes using their platforms to advocate for and create meaningful change.
“The industry and movement is creating new models, and you want to get it right,” says Scott Curran, CEO of Chicago-based Beyond Advisers. “No one should take their foot off the gas pedal.”
Curran spent a number of years with the Clinton Foundation in its infancy before leaving in 2016 to open his own consultancy, which focuses on philanthropy strategy at the highest levels. Curran and his team work with celebrities, athletes, multi-generational family foundations, and other affluent givers who need guidance in directing their philanthropic efforts. It’s a growing area of interest: Over half of affluent households with a net worth between US$5 million and US$20 million have, or are planning to establish, “some kind of giving vehicle” within the next three years, according to the Bank of America report.
Corporate philanthropy, rather than individual giving, is the cornerstone of Marcus Selig’s work as chief conservation officer at the National Forest Foundation, a Congressionally chartered non-profit based in Montana responsible for protecting millions of acres of public lands.
“Our outlook is business as usual,” he says, advising that giving may slow down, but not enough for the foundation to change course.
Factors such as political polarization in the U.S. and the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are pushing nonprofits to consider their niche, and how they might work with other groups, both on the corporate and philanthropic levels, Selig says.
“It leads to a little more sharing on the ground in what needs to be done,” he adds.
Steve Kaufer, founder of Massachusetts-headquartered e-commerce giving platform Give Freely and founder of TripAdvisor, says that the economy has a much bigger role in election years, as he looks to build and grow something that can act as a “counterbalance.”
“There’s a trend towards democratization, and acting collectively can lead to greater impact,” he says.
Kaufer’s new platform hopes to leverage the everyday philanthropist through online shopping dollars to benefit major charity partners like UNICEF and charity:water, who earn funds as shoppers choose an organization to benefit through an online clickthrough process.
“Whether a good year or bad year, e-commerce will continue to keep growing,” he says. “Nobody doubts that.”
Whether a legacy foundation, corporation or individual, the political landscape this year is requiring some to exercise caution as they consider what their own charitable actions might be and how it could be viewed more broadly. For the personal philanthropist, every move is now scrutinized more closely. On the nonprofit side, entities are exercising more due diligence to understand if a specific donor aligns with their mission and that there aren’t any underlying issues that could cause greater pushback.
“You have to be able to walk the walk,” Huston says. “For example, we’ve had to turn down very large donor checks from corporations because there’s a Reddit stream calling them out on their human rights practices.”
She adds that even a routine charity activation could now be aligned with a political party, and that adds complexities to how a higher-profile organization like Six Degrees can activate, especially as the film Footloose turns 40 in 2024 (which Bacon starred in).
“A lot of organizations and states want to align themselves with this feel good moment, and we should be able to stand side by side with everyone, but we have to be aware,” she says.
Another topic attracting donor interest today is mental health, an area that historically has been underfunded and under-resourced by philanthropy, according to Two Bridge partner Harris Schwartzberg, who has been closely linked to the mental health space for more than a decade.
Today, the issue for mental health nonprofits is less about resources and more about societal divisiveness and polarization around the topic. There’s an “overwhelming demand” for solutions, but the space is in a “perfect storm” for the broader political issues to make things worse, Schwartzberg says.
In Curran’s opinion, the storms brewing are troublesome, but they are also creating new opportunities for corporate and personal giving. The current state of philanthropy is one of “dynamic, expansive, and blurred lines,” meaning a careful blending of targeted giving combined with an understanding of the broader geopolitical landscape could lead to a successful overall philanthropic strategy.
“There are a lot of headlines that distract, but shouldn’t,” he says. “2024 needs more serious philanthropists than ever.”
Beyond Advisers spoke with Devex about race-base grantmaking, and in particular, the challenges it is facing within the U.S. court system and their implications for DEI efforts.
The outcome of a legal complaint against race-based grantmaking that is making its way through the U.S. court system could have major implications for global DEI efforts.
Philanthropy leaders in the United States are closely following a legal challenge to race-based grantmaking that is working its way through the court system. At the heart of the lawsuit is the question of whether it is discriminatory to give grants to people or organizations based on their race.
In a separate case last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against colleges considering applicants’ race in deciding which students to admit as part of their efforts to make admissions more equitable for Blacks and other historically marginalized groups. Now the man behind that suit has launched a similar one targeting philanthropies. The outcome has the potential to not only affect U.S. domestic nonprofits but also global grantmakers based in the U.S. — such as the Ford Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation — whose programs support marginalized groups abroad.
A ruling that race-based grantmaking is discriminatory could reverse much of the progress philanthropy has made in recent decades especially after the global racial reckoning of 2020, according to advocates for diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.
“If this lawsuit were successful, it would undermine the rights of individuals and organizations to give to equity and justice in race-conscious and race-based ways,” said Kathleen Enright, president and CEO of the Council on Foundations, or COF, a trade group representing the U.S. philanthropy sector that has publicly supported race-based grantmaking.
“And our emphatic belief is that philanthropy is enriched, communities are enriched when people give in ways that support their values,” she told Devex.
However, some conservative groups have questioned using race as a basis for deciding who should have access to certain opportunities for jobs, education, and other resources. They say the practice is unfair to those outside of specific racial groups.
This case is an example of how U.S. domestic culture wars over race are affecting foreign aid and even private philanthropy. Tens of millions of philanthropy dollars are at stake both in the U.S. and globally.
Questions about discrimination
The case centers on the Atlanta-based Fearless Fund venture capital firm and its foundation. The group is subject to a lawsuit filed in August by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, or AAER, a nonprofit organization run by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum.
Fearless Fund provides grants to Black women entrepreneurs. In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the alliance argues that Fearless Fund’s “Fearless Strivers Grant Contest,” which awards $20,000 to winning applicants, violates Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibiting racial discrimination in contracts. The nearly 160- year-old law was enacted in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War to prevent discrimination against African Americans, most of whom were newly emancipated from slavery.
“Fearless Fund’s explicit racial exclusion in making contracts flaunts section 1981,” AAER said in its complaint, adding that its own members “are being excluded from the program because they are the wrong race.”
Arguments in the case were presented to a three-judge panel last week. A ruling is due in the coming weeks.
If the court decides race-based grants aren’t discriminatory then it should be “business as usual” for philanthropy, said Scott Curran, a U.S.-based lawyer and the founder of the Beyond Advisers consultancy firm for nonprofits.
“I don’t think that’s actually going to stop these efforts,” he said, referring to conservative efforts to go after DEI. “I think we’ll see another bite at the apple.”
However, if the court rules in favor of the alliance, then funders would have no choice but to eliminate such grants, Curran added. And if more of these cases arise, the issue could eventually end up back before the Supreme Court, he said.
Some foundations have already started discussing what changes they might need to make if race-based
grantmaking is deemed illegal, said Elisha Smith Arrillaga, vice president and manager at the Center for Effective Philanthropy, a U.S.-based nonprofit that provides philanthropy research and advisory services to donors.
CEP collected data on 280 U.S.-based foundations between September and November of last year, including their responses to the Supreme Court’s race-based admissions decision. More than half of respondents said they’d had or planned to have internal discussions about the future of their DEI programs, Smith Arrillaga said. Many of these funders also hosted discussions with grantees and consulted with attorneys.
CEP plans to release its survey findings later this month.
Philanthropy’s response
The philanthropy sector isn’t just waiting to see what the court decides — they’re also trying to fight back. In December, COF and fellow nonprofit trade group Independent Sector filed an amicus, or “friend-of-the-court” brief, supporting the Fearless Fund. Amicus briefs are written documents submitted by individuals or groups not directly involved in a legal case that want to offer expertise or insight to help the court make its decision.
In the brief, the groups argue that grantmaking is an expression of free speech, which is protected under the U.S. Constitution. AAER’s lawsuit is an attempt to “chill” free speech and “express an ideal by donating to a community or cause,” the groups said.
“We are always going to protect the way for philanthropies to give in a race-conscious way,” COF’s Enright told Devex.
She called the lawsuit “frivolous” and said it was disheartening to see it follow expanded efforts to support Black people and members of other marginalized or historically oppressed groups.
Some people may have felt threatened by that because they “support the status quo and don’t want change,” she said.
COF also issued a public statement signed by more than 200 nonprofit organizations, including the Ford Foundation, the Global Fund for Women, Imaginable Futures, Omidyar Network, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Some of these organizations lead race- or equity-based work in the global south. Imaginable Futures, which was part of the Omidyar Network created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam until 2020, provides grants to Black-led groups in Brazil, for example.
The Hewlett Foundation, which was not a signatory to COF’s statement, also has advocated for maintaining race-based grants. The $13 billion, California-based foundation has a $150 million racial justice strategy that distributes grants worldwide, including in the global south.
“This is long-term work,” Elizabeth Peters, Hewlett’s interim president, said.
The foundation structured its racial justice strategy as a decade-long strategy, “knowing that progress can face pushback,” she added.
Another view
However, other key players in U.S. philanthropy disagree with the race-based approach to grantmaking.
Following the Supreme Court’s college admissions ruling last year, the conservative-leaning trade group Philanthropy Roundtable issued a statement in support of removing race from consideration in philanthropy.
“Throughout the philanthropic landscape, the clear takeaway is that the Supreme Court has sent a strong signal: stop discriminating based on race.”
“More importantly, the Court’s decision highlighted the need to treat individuals as unique people with unique perspectives, values and experiences,” the group added.
Philanthropy Roundtable created its own framework for philanthropic diversity programs, called True Diversity. Among its guiding principles is the belief that “each person is a unique individual worthy of dignity and respect” and that donors shouldn’t assume they know the best way to support them “based on how they look.”
In August, the group also published a True Diversity toolkit for philanthropists that discusses the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the philanthropy sector. It was written by attorney Jonathan Berry, who was head of the regulatory office at the U.S. Department of Labor under former President Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court’s decision on race-based admissions “is at the minimum a clear warning that simply reciting ‘diversity’ is no excuse for racial discrimination,” Berry wrote.
Philanthropy Roundtable did not respond to a request for comment.
What’s next
Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, legal and philanthropy experts don’t expect it will put an end to the issue of race-based grantmaking.
And if the nation’s highest court takes up the issue, Curran said, its decision would set a standard for how U.S.-based grantmakers can distribute equity-focused funding abroad.
It’s important to keep in mind that the pendulum on issues like affirmative action can swing in either direction over the years, Curran said.
“I think the goal, in my view, is to have the pendulum not swing wildly, but to have it steady,” he said. “And that’s where those clear boundaries are so helpful.”
“And that’s what this case law is going to tell us is what the boundaries are now and as we go forward,” Curran added.
Smaller nonprofits, in particular, could struggle to contend with legal challenges over DEI programs because they have less money available to them, he said. This could mean restructuring their programs and dropping language that specifically refers to race.
Some donors are already doing that, Curran said. In the U.S., nonprofits are targeting communities based on their zip code, or their specific neighborhoods and communities rather than making race part of their consideration for grant funding. Internationally, some funders might soon start using country boundaries or certain cities as a proxy for race. The goal of all of this would be to reach the same people without violating U.S. anti-discrimination laws, Curran said.
However, there is concern that some of these changes could dilute the intent and potential impact of DEI programs.
It feels like philanthropy and other sectors are being forced to “rewind the time machine” when it comes to the terminology that can be used without legal challenge or public backlash, said Mae Hong, a vice president at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ Chicago office.
It took decades for conversations to evolve past the simple concepts of tolerating marginalized groups to concepts such as promoting anti-racism and inclusion, she said. Now people are “having a very strong allergic reaction” to such words, and that’s concerning, Hong said.
“There’s been a widening continuum about the vocabulary of what it is we’re actually aiming for, and that is being rolled back,” she said.
