Grantmaking in the #MeToo Era

(Photo by iStock/Vesnaandjic)

When the #MeToo movement went viral in 2017, an avalanche of revelations rocked the fields that philanthropy invests in, from arts to media to politics. But within a few months, #MeToo complaints began surfacing within philanthropy itself, reminding us that no organization is immune. The allegations were disturbing: of discrimination being repeatedly ignored and of far too many examples of accusers leaving the organization while the accused kept their positions. Boards and funders received reports about serious misconduct yet had not responded. A few cases even involved forcible sexual abuse.

The scale and momentum of the #MeToo movement compelled the Ford Foundation to take a long, hard look in the mirror. What should be our role in responding to abuses of power within the organizations we support? In preventing them? Had we been doing enough?

To provide more specific advice and insight to our program staff and grantees, we developed a body of institutional-level guidance, case studies and tools that reflect a reassessment of our efforts, both in responding to cases of discrimination, harassment, and abuse, and in taking steps to prevent these cases from happening in the first place.

Throughout this process, we learned seven lessons that are crucial for the broader funding field going forward:

Be explicit and consistent about commitments to dignity and safety in the workplace. To ensure that our grantee organizations’ leadership, policies, and practices reflect the values that drive our missions, funders must be explicit from the start about our commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and how we expect our partner organizations to align with these values. We should ask questions about the diversity of an organization’s board and leadership, early on, and pay close and continued attention to how DEI concerns manifest in practice. On site visits, for example, we should be attentive to power dynamics, and ask: Who is included in meetings? Who talks at those meetings, and whose contributions are valued? Who has decision-making power?

Institute a clear internal process. As part of onboarding, we should train new staff on what to look for when it comes to malfeasance, and how to respond. When we hear allegations in a grantee organization, we must ensure that the responsible program officer is aware of the situation and that they follow up, starting with notifying their director and informing legal and communications colleagues about any and all potential legal or reputational risks.

What should be our role in responding to abuses of power within the organizations we support? In preventing them? Had we been doing enough?

Be fully informed and establish a grantee’s responsibilities. When there are allegations of discrimination or harassment in an organization we fund, we can only support the choices an organization makes—or challenge them, if need be—if we are fully informed about the accusation and circumstances. Funders may not always have the full story. For example, when an organization’s leader informed Ford that a staff member was accused of “sexist comments,” it was not until the accuser went public with her complaint six months later that we learned it had been a clear case of sexual harassment. We would have benefitted from asking much more explicit questions from the start.

Because these issues tend to affect all staff—not just the accused and accusers—working to repair the situation means being attentive to the broader culture. This means going beyond implementing official disciplinary policies, and proactively working to safeguard, support, and uplift those affected, putting their safety and dignity at the center of the response. Along with robust whistleblower policies, we expect to see concrete changes in leadership or in how leadership engages with staff.

Understand where a funder’s role begins—and where it doesn’t. Funders can help organizations think about reputational risk, but responding to incidents and ensuring due process is the organization’s role. Funders should not function as investigators or as extensions of an organization’s board, nor should they comment in the media or advocate directly. While we can offer financial support for hiring of external investigators and advisers, we should not participate in the choice nor should we serve as mediators ourselves.

We can, however, help other funders understand their responsibilities, and coordinate to ensure our responses are consistent. Our peers in philanthropy are increasingly publicizing their own expectations—this fall, for example, the Open Society Foundations released a detailed guide outlining grantees’ obligations in handling allegations of discrimination, including sexual harassment. The European grantmaking network Ariadne released an in-depth report on how funders can improve their response to sexual harassment both internally and in situations with grantees.

Grant funds to help right wrongs. One of the first questions we wrestled with was whether our funding should be used to support discrimination settlements. Some staff argued that such use of funds would be the equivalent of paying for malfeasance. But we decided that our commitment to restorative justice required seeing that harmed parties be appropriately compensated, and prohibiting such payments would only increase their burden. In at least one case, an organization couldn’t cover the costs of an inquiry into one of its co-founders while carrying on with its worthy program activities, so we made an additional grant to support the investigation.

Convey that learning and improving are non-negotiable. We should support organizations that are committed to learning from and righting wrongs because they recognize that such action is fundamental to their mission, not because funding hangs in the balance. With that in mind, program staff should observe how quickly and seriously an organization addresses a situation, what systems and safeguards are put in place to prevent future incidents, and what is done to establish inclusive and equitable leadership.

If a grantee’s response to a complaint conflicts with our values, we need to share our concerns. If our confidence in the organization’s leadership is shaken, we might decide to reach out to the organization’s board. Finally, if our confidence is not restored, we must be prepared to end our funding.

Imagine systemic solutions to systemic problems. Study after study reminds us of what we already know: The policies and practices of most nonprofits have enabled the success and upward mobility of specific groups at the expense of others, and the culture at the top of many organizations has reinforced this. Remedying systemic inequities requires proactive responses: changing who makes the decisions; who is hired and promoted; what kinds of policies, practices, and values are advanced and implemented; and whose work gets funded.

Our job in philanthropy is to build change into our own institutions, and then find effective ways to support organizations as they do the same. Our support should help to diversify the fields we work in, and reward those who put DEI front and center.

Miles to Go

All organizations have room for improvement. Progress requires ongoing, intentional effort, and while Ford’s own long-standing commitment to DEI has made us a leader in the field, we know we still have work to do. As #MeToo activists have suggested, for example, Ford recently prohibited nondisclosure agreements in any settlement of discrimination accusations. We will continue to listen and improve.

By fostering conditions that emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion, funders can help ensure that there are fewer instances of abuse to begin with. This means supporting leaders who represent diverse and traditionally marginalized populations, and seeking out and rewarding organizations that have a strong track record on equity and inclusion. And it means making a powerful case for why greater diversity, and stronger and more inclusive cultures, lead not only to thriving, innovative organizational cultures but to richer and more impactful change in the world.

Special thanks to Gitta Zomorodi, Eryn Loeb, Kristin Clarke-Cole, Rama Murali, Paul Silva and Inca Mohammed in the efforts around this work.

Read more stories by Bess Rothenberg.