Nonprofits and Democracy's Mirror

The mirror in our bathroom doesn't get much use these days. With less public interaction, I've found little need to see if I'm leaving the house "presentable." On most days, my hair looks like if Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski stuck his finger in a mildly charged power outlet. But on those rare days when I do look a little closer, changes are apparent. When did that patch of beard near the back of my jaw become more white than brown? What exactly is going on with my eyebrows?

It seems the image of myself that I've held in my head is straying further and further from the reality of the situation. Or maybe the two images never really matched that well.

This same divergence is apparent in the view some of us take of our country's democracy. For every cry we hear of "greatest country on Earth!" we can point to some crack in the façade. The reality is not the same as the ideal.

But what constitutes an ideal democracy? There is no concrete answer, but there are some generally agreed upon aspects. The Democracy Index, which has been rating the world's democracies since 2006, had this to say in the 2020 edition: "Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive, most observers today would agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of a democracy include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of minority rights, and respect for basic human rights."

A couple of these "minimum" features butt heads with the structures in place in the U.S., where the system allows election winners who lose the popular vote and a house of congress that is often controlled by a faction representing tens of millions fewer constituents than the other side.

And while it is true that we are a representative democracy—we elect leaders who make our decisions for us—the fact is that our elected leaders don't really reflect the population as a whole. While some of our leaders may be great listeners with deep empathy and a conviction to do right by their constituents, even the highest degree of empathy is not a perfect substitution for lived experience.

A tick over half of the U.S. population is female. But our Senate currently features only 24 women. The percentage of the population identifying as Black in 2020 was about 12.5 percent, but over the course of the Senate's 232-year history, there have only been 11 Black senators. Similarly, there have only been 11 Hispanic American senators (and six currently), even though Hispanics make up nearly 19% of the population. (The numbers in the House are slightly better: 28% women, 13% Black, and 11% Hispanic, with the vast majority of the diversity on the Democratic side.)

The history of our nation is one of inequality. (Slavery, robber barons, the treatment of Native Americans, and the list goes on.) While our legislators make laws for everyone, they tend to be enforced and affect different populations differently. Skewed representation in the halls of power diminishes the voices of the real people subjected to those inequitable outcomes.

In a perfect society, everyone would be taken care of. We wouldn't need to jump on Go Fund Me when our loved ones get cancer, or live in a cardboard box when we lose a job. Fortunately, the U.S. has a robust charitable sector to help those in need. But the same factors that warp democratic representation in our country's government similarly warp the nonprofit sector that seeks to address failures in that same government's safety net.

In the article "Can Giving Circles Democratize Philanthropy?," Rob Meiksins starts off with the following point: "For many years now, largely undemocratic, white-led foundations and wealthy donors may have been supporting good work, yes, but in doing so, were also increasing their influence on society through their donations to nonprofits. Giving has never been equitable in the U.S.—those who have more have greater capacity to give, after all—but over the past two decades, the concentration of giving has increased dramatically."

Here are some numbers on how giving has become more concentrated: the share of households making charitable gifts has declined from 66% at the start of the millennium to 54% as of 2016. (In addition, the portion of the donation pie given by millionaires has increased from 10% in 1993 to well over 30%, but keep in mind that inflation is playing a role in this statistic; a million dollars isn't what it once was.)

The story of foundations in this country mirrors the generational wealth issue elsewhere in our society. The million dollars invested a hundred years ago has grown to an amazing sum now. New funders that spring up are playing catch-up with old money. And the decline in households making donations mirrors the collapse of our middle class, as the wealth gap continues to accelerate.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court set down its controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The result of the case "reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections." Basically, corporations and other groups have a right to free speech, and money is considered speech. The result was a huge increase in political spending from moneyed interests, creating an even greater divide between the haves and the have-nots. In a funhouse mirror kind of way, this was our democracy mimicking the nonprofit sector, as opposed to the other way around. Those with money could now give an unlimited amount, and distribute it as they wish.

But the nonprofit sector doesn't just mirror the wealth gap of society at large, it also mirrors the racial equity gap.

The Building Movement Project's 2019 Race to Lead survey, which compiled information from respondents in the nonprofit sector, found that while people of color and White respondents had nearly identical educational attainment and placed similar percentages in the roles of middle manager and senior manager, White respondents were far more likely to achieve the top CEO or executive director position: 17% of people of color vs. 26% of White respondents. So while a lot of other factors are equal, something is keeping people of color from equitably achieving that final step.

The article "The Nonprofit Racial Leadership Gap: Flipping the Lens" explores potential reasons. In the same way that our nation's Senate doesn't mirror our population, the boards of nonprofits generally don't, either. One report found that 89% of responding board members identified as White. Whether bias on the part of board members is explicit or internalized, the result has been less minorities moving up to the top of the ranks. Vague questions about things like "fit" in the organization's structure are places where bias towards candidates can hide.

There is no easy way to fix the situation. Predominately White boards are going to need to be willingly inclusive. This will require confronting biases head-on, something the people in our country have been historically less than willing to do. Who will step down to let someone else step up? Your organization will need to have frank, open discussions on how to address the issue of inclusion.

There are also other ways to make the processes that govern the nonprofit sector more democratic.

Earlier, we mentioned giving circles. These entities bring a large group of people together to make grants democratically. Every contributing member has a vote. But there is still an economic component. Only those who can afford to participate get a vote. If you are a giving circle, where do you want to set the donation point? Is it at a level that is attainable to many members of your community?

Other funders are creating voting processes as part of their grantmaking structure. The funder selects a group of finalists and then the public can vote for a "winner," through social media or other means. In these situations, outreach and communication are important. If your organization's communications campaign only reaches a dozen people, is that really a fair representation of the community?

Whether your organization is a funder or a provider of programs and services, you need to find ways to incorporate the voices of the community you serve. They know their needs best. No amount of good intentions can equal first-hand insight. You need to work together, the cornerstone of democracy.

The other day, I cleaned the bathroom mirror, breathed in deeply, and stared for a moment. Has that gray at the temples been there for years, and I just haven't noticed? But this is who I am now. This is not the body that could, once upon a time, chop wood for hours or drive nonstop through the night to reach a destination. But it is the real me, or the real reflection of me. And only with that clear view can I make the best decisions for myself, the ones that will keep me the happiest and the healthiest.

Likewise, until our government and our nonprofit sector can mirror the world in which they exist, they won't be a true reflection of us, but something else blurry and indistinct. A distortion of what we truly are, and need.