“Disparities are usually caused by complex interacting forces, making it almost impossible for just one program or organization to fix.”

I had the good fortune in 2009 to be chosen to be a Resident Scholar at the Center for Community Philanthropy at the University of Arkansas’ Clinton School of Public Service, in Little Rock. The topic was suggested to me, and I chose to frame it as challenges for philanthropy to intervene in the often-dismal trajectory of young African American lives.

Too often this trajectory is shaped by the cascading forces from the punitive actions of those in official authority, one after the other. These interacting cascading forces make it difficult to stand up and recover, creating additional vulnerabilities. They’re also not usually visited on young European Americans, making for the observed disparities in quality of life as these two populations progress. The complexity of all these punitive forces serves to maintain the observed disparities, and make it practically impossible for just one program or organization to untangle and dismantle.

You can read about how this works in the publication of my article for the Clinton School, “Community Philanthropy: Strategies for Impacting Vulnerable Populations,” which you can download here, or from the link below labeled Download Free Report.

Because my posts to this website intend to address several audiences, I’ve created this short summary for each.

Effective Philanthropy: It’s easy for grant makers to be overwhelmed with all the data showing the vulnerability of various groups in America.  It can be equally overwhelming to understand all the complex forces working to maintain this vulnerability. Perhaps it’s a little less overwhelming if one focuses on a particular system, such as health, education, economic opportunity.  You can narrow your focus even more by zeroing in on a few particular indicators of performance that you’d like your grantee organizations to focus on, such as increased mortality, or skill development, or a living wage.  “Making a difference” literally means bending the trajectories of these indicators, from dismal to viable.

Nonprofit Management: Vulnerable populations are those for whom society’s systems and markets don’t work so well compared to less vulnerable populations. “Closing the gaps” to reduce the difference between the vulnerable and less vulnerable is the purpose of many nonprofits and their stakeholders. The marketplace of philanthropic support should favor nonprofits that can make the case that their efforts reduce a particular targeted disparity.

Community Development: Activists can “make a difference” when they apply their gifts towards disrupting the policy of a system that performs poorly or unfairly.  For example, a goal could be to change the practice of, say, authorities using the records of wrong-doing of a 12-year old to harass, haunt and foreclose on the prospects of an otherwise aspiring adult.

Program Evaluation:  Showing progress in a nonprofit’s efforts to close a measured disparity should be a key goal for evaluators.  Funders asking an organization to prove that its efforts actually fix the ills of the world is an ask too far.  Asking instead that the organization demonstrate that its efforts are likely to change the operations of a particular disparities-producing piece of real- world action is a more reasonable ask.  Evaluators can help by helping organizations identify the effects of their system-focused activism.

***

How to cite this cover article: Mayer, Steven E., Community Philanthropy: Strategies for Impacting Vulnerable Populations – A New Introduction.  Minneapolis: Effective Communities Project. Downloaded from EffectiveCommunities.com, [month, date, year].

The original publication on which this cover article is based can be cited this way: Mayer, Steven E., Community Philanthropy: Strategies for Impacting Vulnerable Populations. A publication of the Clinton School of Public Service, 2009.

Tags: Community Development, Philanthropic Effectiveness, Racial Equity