Weekly Reads—April 28, 2023

Enjoy PEAK’s weekly roundup of timely insights from the grantmaking community and beyond.

“Let’s not pretend that all philanthropic institutions are trying to be accountable to marginalized people. Many, including several connected to those pushing for philanthropic pluralism in the Chronicle op-ed [“We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism”], are actively harming these communities and seem unlikely to stop. Yes, everyone has a role to play in our collective healing. But any organization that wants to participate in the healing process must first commit to stopping the harm. If philanthropy chooses to prioritize pluralism to the detriment of equity, it aids and abets the oppression of those who have always struggled to be heard.” [more]
Edgar Villanueva, Decolonizing Wealth Project, for The Chronicle of Philanthropy

“To insist that all philanthropic values, missions, and activities are equally valid is at best naïve and at worst harmful to people and communities. To support its erroneous premise, the article glosses over history, if not downright distorts it. ‘The history of philanthropy is a history of using private capital to supplement, not replace other approaches to investing in and supporting a prosperous and just society. Philanthropy’s roots are stained with inequity and injustice. So much wealth in this country has been built on a legacy of slavery, stolen Indigenous land, worker exploitation, environmental degradation, and tax avoidance. It is a history of white people and white-led corporations creating the very injustices that they then get lauded for giving fractions of the wealth they hoarded to solve.” [more]
 Vu Le, Nonprofit AF

“Nonprofits that spend more on information technology, facilities, equipment, staff training, program development, and fundraising tend to be more successful than those that skimp on these ‘overhead expenses.’ But many donors are reluctant to support groups that spend heavily on those priorities because they associate high overhead costs with wasted money and bad management. … Our findings cast doubt on a common rule of thumb, embraced by some prominent groups that monitor and evaluate charities, that nonprofits with lower overhead ratios are better than those with higher ratios.” [more]
Hala Altamimi, University of Kansas, and Qiaozhen Liu, Florida Atlantic University, for the Chronicle of Philanthropy

“When it comes to addressing the harms of slavery and colonialism, ‘restorative justice’ is often a more palatable term than ‘reparations’. Perhaps the latter seems coldly transactional, nothing more than a transfer of cash, whereas ‘restorative justice’ implies collaboration and healing. But whichever term they use, groups that advocate for reparations almost never seek only money. Their work is grounded in an understanding that the social, the political and the economic are bound together and must be addressed together, creating the possibility of a better world.” [more]
Olivetti Otele, Soas University of London, for The Guardian

Indiana University’s Lily School report, What Americans Think About Philanthropy and Nonprofits, “provides a fresh look at the health of the independent sector today and specifically examines the following three questions: How does the American public perceive philanthropy and the nonprofit sector? Does the American public see the philanthropic sector as trustworthy, transparent, and confident to solve societal issues? What does the American public know about philanthropy and how aware are they of contemporary debates within the nonprofit sector?” [more]