Independent Sector Speaks Out on Diversity: We Need to do Better

Diana Aviv, President of Independent Sector, the leadership forum of over 600 charities, foundations, and corporate giving programs committed to advancing the common good in America and around the world sent this message to her members today. When it landed in my inbox, I really had to gasp a little. Here is a clear statement from a traditionally conservative organization that makes the point that we need to focus a lot more on diversifying our organizations. I wonder how many people have to tell it like it is before we start walking the talk. But today, I gotta give credit where it’s due to Diana and Independent Sector for informing folks about the importance of diversity.

It appears that one of our major political parties will be nominating either a woman or a person of color for president of the United States this year. By the end of this evening, we may be even closer to knowing which one it will be.

The historical importance of this campaign is not lost on a society that extended voting rights to African American men for the first time in 1869, and to women in 1920. While I would have much preferred for this to be not even worthy of comment, the reality is that race and gender continue to be differentiators for many Americans. We are still nowhere near being a society that welcomes people equally to all aspects of community and public life, irrespective of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama appear to be viewed by many through the lens of identity politics, and not simply through the qualifications and qualities of leadership that they bring to the job. Still, progress is most welcome, even as we are painfully aware there is much work to be done to bring down the arbitrary barriers to leadership, based on gender or race, that continue to haunt our public and private institutions.

In our nonprofit community, we have moved forward in increasing diversity among our leaders, but, also like our nation, we have not come nearly far enough. Consider this: The Census Bureau has reported that, as of 2005, approximately one-third of the U.S. population is composed of people of color. Yet, 82 percent of nonprofit executives are white. Our governance structures are even more lopsided: 86 percent of nonprofit board members are white. Especially troubling is the finding, in an Urban Institute report issued last year, is that our sector’s leadership does not see fixing that yawning disparity as a pressing priority. Only 25 percent of nonprofit executives say that ethnic or racial diversity is “somewhat important,” and only 10 percent say it is “very important” as a criterion for recruitment of board members.

Clearly, we can — and should — do better. With our commitment to social justice, to opportunity, and to fairness and equality comes an obligation to remedy this imbalance, so we can better strengthen the diverse communities we serve. Without question, the nonprofit community would be a much more powerful force in society, with various worldviews and life experiences contributing to our work. Our identity as a sector is one of inclusiveness, and our organizations should reflect that — not just because of principled commitments to fairness, but because it would make our programs more successful, more effective.

One initiative intended to improve diversity (at least in the philanthropic world) recently has come from state government. California’s proposed AB 624, passed by the Assembly and now before the Senate, would require all private foundations in California with assets of more than $250 million to collect and publicize data on the racial composition of their boards of directors. The bill also mandates reporting on the board’s gender and sexual orientation, as well as the racial composition, gender, and sexual orientation of the foundation’s staff. Additionally, the bill would require publishing the percentage of business contracts awarded to businesses owned by minorities and the number of grants awarded to organizations serving those groups.

Many philanthropic leaders in California, among them those who have dedicated considerable time and resources to improving diversity in the sector, have suggested that, while the intent of this bill may be welcome, its involuntary approach will not achieve its intended goal. Bob Ross, of IS member the California Endowment, explained in a letter to the Wall Street Journal that “commitment to diversity in our grant making is framed by a desire to enhance the effectiveness of our investments, rather than an allegiance to arbitrarily mandated quotas.” Many in our community feel that there is a real need for a productive partnership between government and the nonprofit community to address the issues of inequity and diversity throughout our society, including the nonprofit community. Much, much more needs to be done. One way government can help communities of color, particularly people who are poor, is to invest in them and provide stepping-stones out of poverty through education, housing, health care, childcare and so on. Nonprofit leaders do not, however, see AB 624 as the right vehicle to strengthen the partnership between us and our government leaders, or as an effective way to improve diversity in the nonprofit community.

That conversation may closely trace the one going on nationwide right now. As the campaigns for president have shown us, many Americans believe the best candidates to run our country do not look like all the ones that have come before them. In the same way, the best candidates to run our organizations do not always look like the ones that came before them. Such leaders have different life experiences and different viewpoints that might allow them to relate and respond better to a multicultural, heterogeneous citizenry. As our communities become more and more diverse, so should the charities and foundations that serve them.