Early in my professional life, the Dayton Hudson Foundation (predecessor to Target Foundation) came to me with this challenging opportunity. “Forty percent of our grantmaking budget is now dedicated to what we’re calling ‘Social Action.’ Our grantmaking guidelines say we want to ‘assist disadvantaged groups become more self–sufficient.’
“We thought we’d be getting requests from organizations that serve racial and ethnic minorities, and we are, but we’re also getting requests from organizations that don’t align with those traditional labels, like the Tenants Union, the United Handicapped Federation, Gay House, the Network of Neighborhood Organizations, Nursing Home Residents Alliance, Organization for Survivors of Domestic Violence, etc.
“These groups apparently see an opportunity for ‘social action’ better than we do! Our staff and Board want a better understanding of just what a disadvantaged group is so we can more useful decisions.
“Here’s a list of 15 people from organizations we’d like you to interview. Come back to us in two months and present your best answer to What is a Disadvantaged Group? Then we can strategize how to improve our grantmaking guidelines. And oh yeah, your response should be no longer than two pages.”
After doing these fascinating interviews and negotiating for three pages rather than two, I delivered. Surprisingly (not really), the concept of “disadvantagement” that we heard was not centered on race, ethnicity, gender, or poverty. Rather disadvantagement meant “denied access to the tools we need to gain greater self–sufficiency.”
Being disadvantaged, we heard, does not mean being born a particular way. Instead, being disadvantaged reflects an active process like being sidelined, usually by other groups more in the mainstream. This is experienced in different ways by different groups, but everyone we interviewed voiced their group’s version of this “structural analysis” of disadvantagement. Each had its own view of the ways it was disadvantaged, the barriers to its self–sufficiency, and the tools needed to overcome these barriers.
A memorable example told me by the United Handicapped Federation: creating permanent curb cuts where a sidewalk meets the street is more beneficial to people with mobility handicaps than is keeping them institutionalized or at home. It’s vastly cheaper than stationing chair–lifting volunteers at each corner all hours of the day. And it turns out it also benefits people pushing baby carriages, riding bicycles, or hauling travel bags. There are multiple benefits to multiple beneficiaries.
How to assist disadvantaged groups? If you’ve ever worked in the nonprofit sector, you’re familiar with this question. Whether you’re giving away someone else’s money or your own, or whether you’re asking for money to support your cause, you’re probably looking for ways to make an investment in the social good go further. Below are ways that four different corners of the nonprofit sector can make use of the answer to this question, “What is a Disadvantaged Group?”
For Nonprofits. It’s “social action” more than “social service” that helps disadvantaged groups gain greater self–sufficiency. Programs serving individual victims one–at–a–time are not as productive as programs that change the policies and practices of systems so that more people benefit. In the curb cut example, nonprofits with an advocacy component persuaded municipal Public Works Departments to lower barriers (literally!) for those in wheelchairs. Upstream of that, advocacy organizations pushed for the Americans With Disability Act which lowered barriers in all Federally funded settings so that those with disabilities can be more included in their pursuit of full participation of all society has to offer.
For Grantmakers. An “assets view” of people and communities is more advantaging than the charitable “deficits view.” Everyone has assets, and everyone wants to improve their lot in life. Rather than grantmaking guidelines that frame “the problem” as what groups can’t do, frame solutions with what groups can do. Grants that help a group build on its assets raise its ability to be less marginalized than grants that don’t. Gifts of respect, incentive and support to change, decision–making responsibility, resources to aid their development, and continued encouragement are useful and valued. Do your grants help a group advance its self–sufficiency, or do they maintain that group’s disadvantagement?
For Board members, Community developers, and Volunteer managers. With the curb cut example, or with system change efforts in general, volunteers are needed to help a nonprofit expand its reach beyond the confines of traditional social service. Muscle and influence is needed to build bridges (to the Department of Public Works, for example), forge partnerships (with other nonprofits engaged in similar system change work), and use the power of networking to help smaller efforts become larger ones. Why volunteers? Traditional philanthropic program grants don’t usually pay for such efforts.
For Evaluators. We take the position that evaluation is most useful when it helps improve an organization. You’ll get your evaluation off on the right foot if you’re aware of the program’s intended beneficiaries and benefits. Is the program designed to deliver them? Will you use measures that capture success for each intended beneficiary – whether at the individual, community, system, or organizational level? Will you look in the right place for evidence of success? Evaluations that reveal an organization’s progress in gaining on its mission are important. Proof of achievement is much less useful than presentations of progress and opportunities for improvement.
To see our report to the Dayton Hudson Foundation, entitled “What is a Disadvantaged Group?”, click here.
Steven E. Mayer, Ph.D. / December 14, 2020
Image credit: neonbrand-BMoPtAhIZvw-unsplash