logo
  • Nonprofit News
  • Management
    • Boards and Governance
    • Communication
      • Framing & Narratives
    • Ethics
    • Financial Management
    • Fund Development
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Philanthropy
    • Corporate Social Responsibility
    • Donor-Advised Funds
    • Foundations
    • Impact Investing
    • Research
    • Workplace Giving
  • Policy
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Housing
    • Government
    • Taxes
  • Economic Justice
    • Economy Remix
    • Economy Webinars
    • Community Benefits
    • Economic Democracy
    • Environmental Justice
    • Fair Finance
    • Housing Rights
    • Land Justice
    • Poor People’s Rights
    • Tax Fairness
  • Racial Equity
  • Social Movements
    • Community Development
    • Community Organizing
    • Culture Change
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Gender Equality
    • Immigrant Rights
    • Indigenous Rights
    • Labor
    • LGBTQ+
    • Racial Justice
    • Youth Activism
  • About Us
  • Log in
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Webinars
    • Leading Edge Membership
    • Sponsored Webinars
    • Economic Justice
  • Tiny Spark Podcast
  • Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Leading Edge Membership
Donate
Management

Exploring the Problem of Black “Movement Capture” by White-Dominated Philanthropy

Ruth McCambridge
March 1, 2019
Share1K
Tweet140
Share
Email
1K Shares
Megan Ming Francis (left), “Black Politics in Trump’s America,” New America

February 28, 2019; Vox, “Future Perfect”

I preface this newswire by urging readers to read the study by Megan Ming Francis from which it is drawn. It is well worth your time.

How do funders, even very well-meaning funders, redirect the course of social movements away from the strategies and narratives deemed important by the activists themselves? This is the basic question raised by an interesting study entitled “The Price of Civil Rights: Black Lives, White Funding, and Movement Capture.” Published in Law and Society Review, the article discusses the framework of “movement capture,” which author Megan Ming Francis, an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington, describes as the power of wealthy funders to change the priorities of a grassroots movement.

Francis does not demonize; she does justice to the funder in question by tracing its own intentions not to insert itself—originally—into direction-setting, but then with some care describes the processes by which that was baldly and persistently abridged.

“I’m concerned that sometimes even with the best of intentions, the priorities of the poorest and marginalized get replaced by the priorities of the rich and powerful,” she says, suggesting that Black emancipatory movements of today may be facing the same siren songs as the NAACP did as foundations seek to fund and perhaps alter their work.

On a larger level, the subtle redirecting effects of funders affect all types of nonprofits, so many readers will find this relevant. In this case, Francis, who also authored the award-winning Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State (2014), convincingly suggests that it may have played a part in altering the focus and course of the struggle for racial justice in the US. Her descriptions of the power-laden negotiations for the grant are searingly familiar even in current terms, as principal actors and narratives of that period are pushed slowly to the side to accommodate white-dominant institutions.

Francis has studied the effects of the relationship of the NAACP to the now-long-defunct Garland Fund in the early 20th century. She believes that the organization’s focus even now has been colored by Garland’s influence, which had the effect of moving the organization’s priorities away from fighting mob violence against black people to educational equity.

“Why does the protection of black bodies from private and state‐sanctioned violence remain an unmet challenge for civil rights groups committed to racial equality?” she asks in the study, “A major but under recognized reason…is directly connected to movement capture.”

From the viewpoint of the NAACP, before the organization could appropriately address other problematic areas of civil rights such as voting, labor, and housing, it was necessary to focus on ending lynching and mob violence. The NAACP, who viewed safety from mob violence and lynchings as the pinnacle civil rights struggle of the twentieth century, was severely underfunded by 1925 and without any viable prospects of big donors to support its anti‐lynching activism.

It was in this context that the Garland Fund offered the largest grant ever made to the NAACP, but it was for pursuing civil rights in education. This, Francis argues, may have played a significant role in reshaping and directing the movement. As Francis writes,

The focus on education sidelined concerns of criminal procedure, siphoned resources away from the campaign around workers’ economic rights, and undermined the concerns of black labor. However, the campaign also had the effect of dramatically transforming constitutional law with the momentous Brown v. Board of Education decision. And even if it did not bring about direct change in education as many have alleged, it did have “cultural significance” which invigorated a new world of court‐centered and legislation‐centered civil rights claiming.

But might the outcome been better, might the movement have gotten further, had the organization been able to retain its original focus, the one for which it could not get sufficiently funded? This is an unanswerable question, but one clearly worth pondering.

Francis points to evidence that black leaders at the time didn’t think of desegregation as the pivotal success that we see it as today. Other researchers have emphasized that the fight for Brown was somewhat out of step with what black communities prioritized at the time.

[…]

They achieved this dramatic, important thing…but I do wonder about how different the trajectory of civil rights would have been if we’d listened to black activists at the time.”

Throughout this study, Francis talks about the ways in which narratives were essentially bought by those with power and money. She argues that you’ll see movement capture whenever there are private funders with different priorities than the organizations they’re funding, using their influence to redirect the organization’s focus and energy.

“That’s the conundrum of contemporary philanthropy,” she told Vox reporter Kelsey Piper. “It’s not bad that we have these so-called thought leaders. It’s not bad that there’s the work being done by [George] Soros, or by other groups, on work they think is genuinely important. But what was concerning back in the 1920s, and what I think is still concerning today, is the way that exciting localized social justice organizations get co-opted by funders.”—Ruth McCambridge

Share1K
Tweet140
Share
Email
1K Shares

About The Author
Ruth McCambridge

Ruth is Editor in Chief of the Nonprofit Quarterly. Her background includes forty-five years of experience in nonprofits, primarily in organizations that mix grassroots community work with policy change. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Ruth spent a decade at the Boston Foundation, developing and implementing capacity building programs and advocating for grantmaking attention to constituent involvement.

Related
Philanthropy as Reciprocity
By Sarah Kastelic
December 2, 2019
Celebrating Our Strengths: Authentic Partnerships for Nation Building
By Valerie Segrest and Lisa Wilson
November 25, 2019
Irrational Numbers: Charting a New Path in Indian Country
By Michael E. Roberts
November 18, 2019
Let’s Talk about Fundraising: A Perspective from Cochiti Pueblo
By Trisha Moquino
November 11, 2019
When the “Going Concern” Finding Looms: A Familiar Nonprofit Nightmare
By Ruth McCambridge
October 23, 2019
Nonprofit Sues Over Ejection from United Way Fiscal Sponsorship
By Ruth McCambridge
October 11, 2019
other posts by The Author
With Donor Households Declining, Will Universal Charitable...
By Ruth McCambridge
December 4, 2019
Schwab Charitable Won’t Approve Grants from Its DAFs to...
By Ruth McCambridge
December 3, 2019
Study on Overhead and Donors Suggests “Mum’s the Word”
By Ruth McCambridge and Sarah Miller
November 27, 2019
A Series on Sensemaking Organizations
The Sensemaking Organization: Designing for Complexity
The Sensemaking Mindset: Improvisation over Strategy
Structuring for Sensemaking: The Power of Small Segments
logo
Donate
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletters
  • Write for NPQ
  • Advertise
  • Writers
  • Funders
  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

Subscribe to View Webinars

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by GDPR plugin
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.