University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Good intentions are not enough: exploring implicit racial bias in philanthropy

(USC Thesis Other)

Good intentions are not enough: exploring implicit racial bias in philanthropy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content GOOD INTENTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH: EXPLORING IMPLICIT RACIAL BIAS
IN PHILANTHROPY
by
Sara Straubel
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
August 2024
Copyright 2024 Sara Straubel

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Nicole Esparza, whose mentorship
and thought partnership as my committee chair has been invaluable. This endeavor would also
not have been possible without the expertise and feedback from my esteemed committee
members, Kaci Y. Patterson and Dr. LaVonna B. Lewis.
I am thankful to my classmates, in particular Dr. Jennifer King and Dr. Tina Paddock, for
their inspiration and encouragement. I will always be grateful to Dr. Steve Seidel, William
Ahmanson, and Carrie Harlow for their recommendation and continued support of my academic
aspirations. I would be remiss in not thanking Ariella Reiss, Ilir Lita, Kristina Farkas, and Piper
Kamins for sharing their perspectives on philanthropy with me throughout the years.
I would also like to thank my family for all their support, particularly my parents, Patrick
and Rebecca Straubel, whose belief in me was always reassuring. Finally, I would like to thank
my daughter, Margaux Ly, for being a source of joy and motivation during this entire process.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
Abstract......................................................................................................................................... vii
Preface.......................................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................1
Research Problem/Purpose ........................................................................................................3
Research Question .....................................................................................................................7
Methodology..............................................................................................................................7
Participants...........................................................................................................................7
Data Collection ....................................................................................................................8
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................9
Assumptions/Limitations/Delimitations..................................................................................10
Assumptions.......................................................................................................................10
Limitations.........................................................................................................................10
Delimitations......................................................................................................................11
Summary..................................................................................................................................11
Chapter 2: Literature Review.........................................................................................................13
Themes.....................................................................................................................................13
Impact of Legislation and Sector Initiatives......................................................................13
Growing Recognition of Racial Equity and Implicit Bias.................................................17
Power and Discretion of Philanthropy...............................................................................20
Summary..................................................................................................................................24
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework for Investigation.....................................................................26
Framework for Investigation....................................................................................................26

iv
People.................................................................................................................................26
Structure.............................................................................................................................29
Context...............................................................................................................................31
Summary..................................................................................................................................34
Chapter 4 Methodology .................................................................................................................35
Methodology Selection ............................................................................................................35
Research Design.......................................................................................................................36
Quantitative Phase .............................................................................................................38
Qualitative Phase ...............................................................................................................39
Participants.........................................................................................................................39
Procedures Followed..........................................................................................................41
Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................42
People.................................................................................................................................44
Structure.............................................................................................................................44
Context...............................................................................................................................45
Summary..................................................................................................................................45
Chapter 5: Results and Findings....................................................................................................46
Participants...............................................................................................................................47
Quantitative Results.................................................................................................................50
Quantitative Part 1: Survey Instrument..............................................................................50
Quantitative Part 2: Implicit Association Test...................................................................52
Quantitative Part 3: Grantmaking Analysis.......................................................................54
Summary of Key Quantitative Results ....................................................................................55
Qualitative Findings.................................................................................................................55
People.................................................................................................................................55

v
Structure.............................................................................................................................64
Context...............................................................................................................................70
Summary of Key Qualitative Findings....................................................................................73
People.................................................................................................................................73
Structure.............................................................................................................................74
Context...............................................................................................................................74
Chapter 6: Discussion ....................................................................................................................75
Summary..................................................................................................................................76
Quantitative Results and Qualitative Findings ........................................................................78
Accountability....................................................................................................................82
Transparency......................................................................................................................87
Implications for Practice ..........................................................................................................93
Recommendations for Research ..............................................................................................96
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................96
References......................................................................................................................................99
Appendices...................................................................................................................................105
Appendix A: Information Sheet.............................................................................................105
Appendix B: Survey Instrument ............................................................................................106
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ............................................................................................109
Appendix D: Grantmaking Analysis......................................................................................111

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Foundation Characteristics, 2022, 2023, 2024 (N = 10)..................................................48
Table 2: Participant Characteristics (Participants N = 10).............................................................49
Table 3: IAT Survey Questions (Participants N = 10)...................................................................51
Table 4: IAT Survey Questions (Participants N = 10)...................................................................51
Table 5: IAT Survey Questions (Participants N = 10)...................................................................52
Table 6: IAT Results (Participants N = 10) ...................................................................................53
Table 7: Grantmaking Analysis Results (Foundations N = 10).....................................................54
Table 8: IAT Predictions and Results............................................................................................59
Table 9: Participants’ Identities and IAT Results..........................................................................60
Table 10: IAT Surprise ..................................................................................................................63
Table 11: Grantmaking Estimation and Analysis Results (Foundations N = 10)..........................69
Table 12 Responsibility .................................................................................................................72

vii
ABSTRACT
This study asks to what extent, and in what ways, grantmaking professionals at private
foundations experience implicit bias in their grantmaking. Previous research indicates there has
been little emphasis on addressing how grantmakers’ unconscious minds may influence their
decision making, perhaps perpetuating values that diverge from their foundations’ commitments
to social justice and racial equity. Philanthropy is predominately White, and this lack of diversity
may affect who receives grants, with fewer resources supporting communities of color, perhaps
due to implicit bias of grantmakers. Data were collected through an online survey, the Implicit
Association Test on race, and an analysis of grantmaking in 2022, 2023, or 2024 that informed
the semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with 10 philanthropic professionals from 10 different
foundations. While the interviewees may not all have a bias against people of color, all
participants agreed there is bias in their grantmaking process. Despite having explicit
commitments to social justice and racial equity, most individuals did not have access to
demographic data on the communities their grantmaking dollars were supporting. This is
problematic because the study found that philanthropic professionals overestimated their
grantmaking to communities of color. Fortunately, philanthropic professionals are motivated by
a responsibility to serve communities of color and have begun identifying solutions to mitigate
bias. These findings indicate that philanthropic professionals must confront assumptions,
stereotypes, and beliefs they may hold. Philanthropy also needs the tools to hold itself
accountable to the community it seeks to support and ways to transparently communicate its
efforts to the broader public.
Keywords: philanthropy, private foundations, grantmaking, bias, racial bias, diversity,
equity, inclusion, social justice, racial equity, transparency, accountability

viii
PREFACE
When I enrolled in the Doctorate of Policy, Planning, and Development program at the
University of Southern California in 2018, my research interests focused on efforts to streamline
philanthropic practices. This was informed by my six years of fundraising experience as a
development officer at a nonprofit organization, as well as grantmaking experience at a private
foundation, where I have been employed as a senior program officer since 2013. Additionally,
my graduate research at Harvard University explored the relationship between the nonprofit and
philanthropic sectors to better understand how philanthropy made grantmaking decisions.
Beyond being more efficient, my goal was to improve the quality of grantmaking and
ease the burdens that grassroots nonprofits face in fundraising to allow the sector to thrive. I had
imagined designing a common application, similar to that used by colleges and universities, to
allow for a more seamless transition of knowledge between the nonprofit and philanthropic
sectors. When I shared these interests with a colleague in the field, they pointed out that many of
the policies and procedures in philanthropy, and the world more broadly, were designed to
exclude rather than include people, particularly people of color.
While I was coming to this research with good intentions, I realized that I was
perpetuating tenets of White supremacy and had failed to imagine how these efficiencies could
negatively impact those nonprofits I most wanted to support. It was an overwhelming realization
and caused me to reflect deeply on my own power and privilege within philanthropy. I was, and
continue to be, surrounded by philanthropic professionals who genuinely care about supporting
their communities, particularly communities of color that have been historically, systematically
excluded from access to capital. When I realized that these assumptions were happening at an

ix
unconscious level, it was a reminder to me that good intentions are not enough and that I must
constantly interrogate my own assumptions.
When I began researching implicit racial bias in philanthropy, I believed that individuals
might not fully understand how their unconscious minds are impacting their policies and
procedures in grantmaking. I was surprised and grateful to learn that many of my colleagues are
thinking about bias and are motivated to mitigate their bias to better support communities of
color. This is especially true after the social and racial reckoning of 2020, a time when many
foundations became more explicit in their efforts to support social justice and racial equity
through their grantmaking. However, I also learned about a shadow system of grantmaking that
often does not align with these efforts and is perpetuated by foundation leadership, to the dismay
of its program staff. The interviewees identified where bias exists within their policies and
procedures, but many lack the resources to be accountable and transparent in their efforts to
address diversity, equity, and inclusion in their grantmaking. I remain hopeful, though, as the
professionals I interviewed and my colleagues beyond this research are dedicated to their
missions of social justice and racial equity and supporting communities of color.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In the United States, philanthropy exists as the third sector of the economy,
complementary to the government and business sectors in the provision of public goods and
services. Its unique position in the nonprofit sector allows it to “fill many roles that neither the
government nor the market fulfill” for a variety of reasons (Osili et al., 2023, p. 7). There is
flexibility in philanthropic dollars that allows such organizations to move quickly and take
opportunities that are not possible in the public sector, where bureaucracy and accountability are
at the forefront. Additionally, philanthropic organizations do not need to consider profitability in
their grantmaking investments, which is what drives the private sector. Instead, many believe
that philanthropy is motivated by altruism and a desire for broader social benefit. This may
contribute to why Americans’ trust in both the public and private sectors is declining. However,
the public’s confidence in the nonprofit sector is relatively high (Gallup, 2023; Osili et al., 2023;
Pew Research Center, 2024). Further, a 2021 study from Independent Sector “found that 84
percent of respondents were confident in nonprofits’ ability to strengthen American society and
65 percent said the same of philanthropy” (Osili et al., 2023, p. 20).
Philanthropy takes on many forms (individual giving, donor-advised funds) and
grantmaking foundations of all types (community, corporate, operating, and private). Candid
(2024d), a leading source for information on the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors, defined a
foundation as “a nonprofit corporation or a charitable trust that makes grants to organizations,
institutions, or individuals for charitable purposes” (para. 1). The organization also notes that
“foundations are crucial in addressing societal issues and supporting various causes, from
education and health to the arts and environmental conservation” (Candid, 2024d, para. 1).
Private foundations are also often referred to as independent foundations and represent the

2
largest type of foundation with regard to the total number of organizations, assets, and giving
(Candid, 2020). There are nearly 108,000 private foundations in the United States, holding assets
of nearly $948 billion and making grants totaling $57 billion to the nonprofit sector (Candid,
2020). To contextualize these figures, private foundations allocate approximately 6% of their
assets toward social benefit and retain the remaining 94% in their endowments.
With substantial wealth and flexibility and in the absence of accountability and a profit
motive, private foundations are alternatingly praised and criticized for their decision making,
which takes place without much oversight. A closer look into who makes these grantmaking
decisions and who benefits reveals a striking contrast. The leadership of philanthropy remains
predominantly White, with only 15% of foundation CEOs identifying as people of color,
according to the 2023 Council on Foundation’s Grantmaker Salary and Benefits Report. That
report also noted that people of color accounted for only 33% of full-time philanthropic staff
(Council on Foundations, 2023). And in both cases, it represents an increase from previous years,
which revealed lower numbers of leadership and staffing by people of color (Council on
Foundations, 2023). This lack of diversity may affect who benefits, with only about 5% of grants
supporting communities of color (Atkins & Aguilar, 2012).
While research around racial inequity is not entirely new to the philanthropic sector,
many scholars and social sector leaders believe that the national conversation has accelerated
around issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and there is an explicit emphasis on addressing
systemic racism both as an internal process and externally in grantmaking (D5, 2016;
Giridharadas, 2019; Villanueva, 2018). Some private foundations have responded by hiring
consultants to provide training to their predominantly White leaders and staff. Additionally,
philanthropic-serving organizations and regional grantmaking associations have begun offering

3
similar programming to their members, providing more opportunities for funders to engage in
this effort. These endeavors represent an important step forward for philanthropy to address its
issues of privilege and begin its learning journey toward a more equitable grantmaking portfolio
that has historically prioritized White-led organizations over those led by and serving
communities of color. However, little emphasis has been placed on addressing how philanthropic
professionals’ unconscious minds might influence their decision making, perhaps upholding and
perpetuating values that diverge from their beliefs regarding social justice and racial equity in
philanthropy. Everyone has biases, but the impact of those biases depends on the social and
professional roles one occupies in society (Marks, 2019). In philanthropy, biases can impact how
funding is accessed and allocated to the benefit of some and, perhaps, at the exclusion of others.
This dissertation examined the role of implicit racial bias in philanthropic grantmaking. I
used a mixed-methods approach to triangulate (a) interviews of philanthropic professionals, (b)
quantitative results from the Implicit Association Test (IAT) on race, and (c) an analysis of the
racial composition of communities each philanthropic professional funds. This integrative
mixed-methods design contributes to understanding why private foundations’ giving might
marginalize communities of color despite the best of intentions. Philanthropic staff must
constantly review and revise their systems of grantmaking to ensure that they do not perpetuate
bias in their decision-making processes. This research offers a starting point for foundations to
begin such work, to uncover and examine how their espoused values around social justice and
racial equity may not align with their practices.
Research Problem/Purpose
As Georg von Schnurbein, Marta Rey-Garcia, and Michaela Neumayr write in their 2021
research paper, “Contemporary Philanthropy in the Spotlight: Pushing the Boundaries of

4
Research on a Global and Contested Social Practice” in Voluntas, “As a result of the accelerated
change and global visibility of philanthropic practices, their sources for legitimacy, financial
accountability, political influence and (expectations for) public benefit outcomes have become,
more than ever before, under the spotlight of public opinion” (p. 186). However, a report issued
in April 2023 by The Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy found that
“Americans do not know much about the philanthropic sector nor are they aware of many
nonprofit entities or the rules that govern their activities” (Osili et al., p. 6). This is true despite
foregoing an estimated $50 billion in tax revenue every year through the use of charitable
deductions (Callahan, 2017). To clarify the impact, this includes all types of philanthropic
gifts—from individuals, donor-advised funds, and foundations of all types (private, operating,
corporate, and community). However, as compared to the other three types of foundations
(corporate, community, operating), private foundations represent 90% of all foundations, hold
79% of all foundations’ assets, and are responsible for 70% of all giving (Candid, 2020).
Additionally, most Americans are not aware of their own interactions with the nonprofit sector.
Coverage in The Chronicle of Philanthropy of The Indiana University Lilly Family School of
Philanthropy’s April 2023 report What Americans Think About Philanthropy and Nonprofits
noted,
Perhaps most surprising is that only 5% of Americans think they or someone in their
immediate family has been helped by a nonprofit, even though one in 11 work for a
charitable organization and a big share of people are served by colleges, hospitals,
cultural organizations, or religious congregations or participate in advocacy drives by
environmental, civil rights, and other nonprofits. (Daniels, 2023, para. 3)

5
Philanthropy’s ample financial resources, relative freedom, and power to influence situate
private foundations well for understanding and mitigating implicit racial biases among those who
control private resources for public benefit. Implicit biases come from external characteristics
that we can see, namely race and gender bias (Marks, 2019). Marks (2019), who founded the
National Training Institute on Race and Equity, defined implicit bias as
Mental associations of certain groups with specific traits (e.g. stereotypes) below
conscious awareness, which are often followed by subconscious prejudice (dis/liking)
and/or discrimination (behavior) in a manner that typically benefits oneself or one’s
group and/or disadvantages out-groups; tends to involve a limited or inaccurate
perception of others. (p. 41)
These biases often translate to discrimination against Black Americans, Native
Americans, and women. Implicit bias also affects the elderly, the overweight and obese,
individuals with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ community, among many others
(Marks, 2019; Scott, 2017).
This study focused on philanthropic professionals in private foundations for three
primary reasons: (a) private foundations represent the largest type of foundation with regard to
the total number of organizations, assets, and giving (Candid, 2020); (b) the government has
historically allowed private foundations a considerable amount of discretion (Jensen, 2013); and
(c) philanthropy has the power to influence individuals’ lives of, shape public policy, and
therefore broadly impact society (Jensen, 2013). Private foundations share the following
commonalities that define their work:

6
• They are established for charitable purposes and to provide donors with a tax
deduction for their contributions.
• They are managed by their own boards of directors.
• Their founders normally control these organizations and provide most of their
funding.
• They must make charitable distributions throughout their taxable year.
• They are tax-exempt organizations but must pay a nominal excise tax of 1% or 2% on
their net investment income (Foundation Source, 2019).
In the book How to Make Collaboration Work: Powerful Ways to Build Consensus, Solve
Problems, and Make Decisions, organizational development consultant, trainer, and author
David Straus (2002) defined four types of stakeholders: “those who have formal power to make a
decision, those with the power to block a decision, those affected by a decision, and those with
relevant information or expertise” (p. 40). There are two important stakeholders in private
foundations: those with the power to set policies and procedures and those with the power to
implement or block these. Boards of trustees and executives have the power to authorize and
what Straus referred to as “final and binding decisions” (p. 40). Ninety-two percent of foundation
presidents and 83% of other executive staff identify as White (D5, 2016). Foundation staff, such
as program officers, also have power, given their direct relationship with the philanthropic
community, and 68% identify as White (D5, 2016). Based on these numbers, White people hold
the majority of formal and discretionary power in private foundations.
Philanthropic professionals should recognize that despite their best intentions, their
unconscious minds may be impacting decision making. Most people are unaware of their own
implicit bias, “which is more prevalent than explicit bias because our minds are mental machines

7
that take in and store many associations between groups and traits that we have not consciously
processed” (Marks, 2019, p. 42). Because many thoughts and actions are automatic, “implicit
bias is a stronger predictor of day-to-day behavior than explicit bias” (Marks, 2019, p. 42).
Implicit bias can be generally understood as an unconscious prejudice, and explicit bias as a
clearly stated prejudice. This means that individuals working in philanthropy may not fully
understand how their unconscious decisions influence their grantmaking.
Research Question
This study explored the impact of implicit racial bias in grantmaking by asking the
following question:
To what extent, and in what ways, do grantmaking professionals at private foundations
experience implicit bias in their grantmaking?
By utilizing mixed methods, this study offers a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of
how implicit racial bias influences and impacts grantmaking decisions.
Methodology
To answer the research question, this study utilized an explanatory, sequential mixedmethods research design. This explanatory methodological approach began with a three-part
quantitative phase of data gathering and analysis that informed and eventually explained the
second phase of qualitative data gathering, a process described by Creswell and Creswell (2017).
Additionally, I relied on researchers Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis.
Participants
Once I established the research protocol and the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved it, I recruited 10 participants who completed all
phases of this study. Participants of different races from private foundations across the country

8
all worked at organizations that have explicit commitments to racial equity and/or social justice,
as demonstrated in their missions, visions, and values. I identified these foundations through a
search of Foundation Directory and the GuideStar online database managed by Candid (2024a,
2024c). I confirmed each foundation’s eligibility by reviewing their websites and identifying
staff who would fit the criteria for participation. For this research, I focused on the staff at
private foundations, such as program directors, managers, officers, and associates. These
individuals hold the discretionary power to execute policies and procedures, and they liaise
directly with nonprofit organizations. To ensure participants remained anonymous, I used
pseudonyms throughout this dissertation and did not include any identifying information about
their foundations.
Data Collection
The first quantitative phase consisted of three parts. Initially, participants completed a
short Qualtrics survey to gather basic demographic data and understand their perceptions of how
biases may impact their grantmaking decisions and processes, if at all. Subsequently, participants
took the IAT on race and shared their results with me. The value of the IAT is that it “measures
attitudes and beliefs that people may be unwilling or unable to report” and that it “may be
especially interesting if it shows that you have an implicit attitude that you did not know about”
(Project Implicit, n.d., para. 1). Results from the IAT provided insight into the extent of implicit
racial bias among the participants. Finally, to identify the racial composition of the communities
each individual’s foundation funds, I reviewed their most recent fiscal year’s grantmaking data
available on Candid’s website, which was either from 2022, 2023, or 2024. I compared grantees’
headquarters’ ZIP codes to race information available from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2020
decennial census offers racial data organized by ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA), or

9
“generalized areal representations of United States Postal Service (USPS) ZIP code service
areas” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, para. 1). This comparison allowed me to understand each
participant’s foundation’s grantmaking and the communities in which they operate.
The second qualitative phase involved semi-structured, recorded interviews with
participants via Zoom to discuss the findings of their IAT, their professional experiences, and
their foundation’s grantmaking to bring clarity and insight to the study. Questions were designed
to help me better understand how program staff interpret their IAT results and what effect
implicit racial bias may have on their grantmaking decisions, if at all. Topics covered were their
reasons for joining the philanthropic sector, how they decide which organizations to support,
their grantmaking processes, how implicit racial bias may affect their decisions and processes,
considerations they have for their professional responsibilities and reputations across the sector,
their IAT results, and their reflections on the racial composition of their grantees’ headquarters.
At the conclusion of each interview, I wrote memos to record observational data.
Data Analysis
After I conducted both the qualitative and quantitative phases, I analyzed the data to look
for patterns and themes across participants and their foundations. This process included
examining survey responses, reviewing IAT tests, watching Zoom recordings of interviews, and
reading Zoom interview transcripts, my handwritten interview notes, and my post-interview
memos. I organized the results and findings according to the themes that emerged from the
literature review and followed a framework that I created to investigate ways that implicit bias
could impact philanthropic decision making. Those key areas included people, structure, and
context. I developed coding and categorizing strategies, interpreted the data by summarizing and

10
triangulating findings, compared those findings to the literature, discussed my personal view, and
made suggestions for future research.
Assumptions/Limitations/Delimitations
As with most research, the design of this methodology contains assumptions and presents
potential limitations and delimitations that can challenge its validity.
Assumptions
First, I must acknowledge the biases that I bring to this analysis as a White woman with
experience in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. Understanding that we all hold some
degree of implicit racial bias, I was mindful of how my unconscious mind was working to
categorize information. Additionally, I must acknowledge that the responses provided by the
interviewees may not be entirely true. For individuals employed at private foundations
committed to social justice and racial equity, admitting implicit racial bias may be accompanied
by feelings of embarrassment or guilt. In some cases, individuals may not have revealed details
they thought would reflect negatively on them or their employers despite anonymity.
Limitations
I am aware that our understanding of implicit racial bias and how it affects our decision
making is constantly evolving, and while the research included in this dissertation is
comprehensive, there may be new perspectives on implicit racial bias that I have not explored. A
limitation of this analysis is that it could not capture the latent norms of the policies, procedures,
and processes within a foundation. At private foundations, there may be unspoken rules and
practices that further perpetuate implicit racial bias. To the extent that these decisions are up to
individuals, there are opportunities for biases to influence decision-making processes that may
not have been visible to me through this analysis. In the wake of the social and racial reckoning

11
in the United States in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd by police, there were calls across
philanthropy to increase support for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC)
communities. I must acknowledge that I reviewed the most recent grantmaking data available for
each program staff’s respective foundations (2022, 2023, or 2024), which may reflect an increase
in funding to BIPOC organizations as compared to historical grantmaking.
Delimitations
I recognize the small sample utilized in this study. Presumably, a larger sample would
allow me to draw more valid conclusions applicable to the broader philanthropic sector.
Additionally, I concede that the use of a nonprofit headquarters’ ZIP code is not a perfect proxy
for the area in which it provides its services and delivers its programs. Additionally, ZIP codes
used by the United States Postal Service and the ZCTAs used by the U.S. Census Bureau are not
always identical geographic overlays and may present some differences. Additionally, ZCTAs do
not reflect all ZIP codes, and therefore, I did not capture the totality of individuals who may
reside in a particular nonprofit’s ZIP code.
Despite these assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, my goal in interviewing these
philanthropic professionals was to determine whether, regardless of an individual and/or private
foundation’s best intention, they may be perpetuating implicit racial bias in opposition to their
espoused values of social justice and racial equity.
Summary
Unfortunately for the nonprofit sector, there is not extensive research on the role that
implicit racial bias plays in private foundations’ grantmaking. This gap in the research indicates
that philanthropic professionals may not fully recognize the extent of implicit racial bias in their
decision making. The goal of this study was to explore the extent of implicit racial bias of

12
individuals in philanthropy and how these biases can show up in their work. It is my hope that
this exploration and understanding may help other philanthropic professionals identify and begin
to overcome their biases so that they can better fulfill their charitable missions. The privilege
afforded to philanthropy is predicated on a trusting relationship and accompanied by a
responsibility to distribute its resources for the greatest public benefit. This study addressed the
pressing call to action to encourage grantmakers to examine their implicit biases to achieve
greater equity in the allocation of resources. Ultimately, when philanthropy acknowledges and
addresses implicit biases, resources can be allocated to communities that have been historically,
systemically neglected to achieve greater equity in society more broadly. Good intentions of
philanthropic professionals are simply not enough.
This dissertation is organized into six chapters. Chapter 2 reviews the literature on
philanthropy and implicit racial bias, establishing the theoretical framework for the study, which
Chapter 3 outlines. Chapter 4 details the mixed-methods approach, including the three-part
quantitative phase and the qualitative phase, which involved interviews with 10 participants.
Chapter 5 presents the quantitative results from the survey, IAT, and grantmaking analysis, as
well as the qualitative findings from the interviews. Chapter 6 integrates these results and
findings, discusses their implications for philanthropic practices, and offers practical
recommendations for foundations to mitigate implicit racial bias in their grantmaking processes.

13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Implicit bias has been presented as a potential obstacle to the equitable distribution of
private foundations’ philanthropic dollars. This literature review explored current, relevant
research on race and implicit bias as it relates to private foundations to identify where the
research has been, where it is now, and where it must go. I examined 39 sources from 1985
through 2024. More than half of these sources were published in the last 10 years. The topic was
covered in academic journals, books, dissertations, newspapers, and presentations. This thorough
review revealed three key themes:
1. Impact of legislation and sector initiatives
2. Growing recognition of racial equity and implicit bias
3. Power and discretion of philanthropy
Themes
Impact of Legislation and Sector Initiatives
Much of the conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion in philanthropy was
spurred in the wake of the proposed California Assembly Bill 624 (the Foundation Diversity and
Transparency Act in 2007), which was designed to encourage “transparency on gender, racial,
and ethnic grant making” (Atkins & Aguilar, 2012, p. 4). The legislation was drafted after the
release of a Greenlining Institute diversity report on California foundations’ grantmaking, which
illuminated a disparity in funding toward nonprofits led by people of color (Aguilar et al., 2005).
Facing opposition from the philanthropic sector, the bill did not pass. Instead, a coalition of
foundations and the leaders of the Black, Asian, and Latino Caucuses created a somewhat vague,
voluntary agreement to diversify philanthropy (Atkins & Aguilar, 2012). In that same year, a
voluntary effort by more than 50 foundations and philanthropic leaders addressed the issues

14
raised in that bill. That effort, the Diversity in Philanthropy Project, ran from 2007 until 2010,
when it published its findings and recommendations in Foundation Review (Bearman et al.,
2010). It was designed to increase diversity and inclusive practice across the sector but was
challenged by its ability to assess the effectiveness of diversity on performance, slow adaptations
of its recommendations, and a lack of engagement among stakeholders (Bearman et al., 2010).
Not to be deterred, another coalition formed, this time in 2010 and dubbed D5, to create a more
sustained strategy for the field. D5 published five reports between 2011 and 2016 that would
serve as a baseline for future scholarship and offer recommendations on how the sector could
advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (D5, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016). The importance of
D5’s efforts has been cited across much of the subsequent literature and serves as inspiration for
other calls to action to address a lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion in philanthropy.
Gary Cunningham, Marcia Avner, and Romilda Justilien’s 2014 article in The
Foundation Review suggested that now is the time for independent foundations to use their
power to organize and research the issues of racial injustice. Cunningham et al. lent their
expertise as researchers, leaders of nonprofit and philanthropic foundations, as well as
consultants working on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The authors cited evidence that
the future of society is about to change, with the minority becoming the majority by 2050,
necessitating an understanding of the role that race plays in foundations’ decision making
(Cunningham et al., 2014). Three years later, Scott (2017) noted in a research project at
Pepperdine University, Developing a Racial Equity Stance: Moving Philanthropy Beyond Board
Diversity Statements, that these conversations “have grown in both urgency and intensity” (p.
iii).

15
Additionally, and more recently, Jara Dean-Coffey, founder and director of the Equitable
Evaluation Initiative who has more than 25 years of experience in the sector, noted in a 2018
article, “What’s Race Got to Do With It? Equity and Philanthropic Evaluation Practice” which
appeared in the American Journal of Evaluation that “an increasing number of foundations are
embracing racial equity/equity as a core value, and it is influencing how they see themselves and
operate” (p. 527). This call to action followed compelling research from Courtney Jensen, now
an assistant professor at Eastern Washington University. Jensen’s 2013 dissertation, Foundations
and Racial Inequality: A Discourse Analysis, noted the lack of research on racial inequity and
called on scholars to take up the issue and encouraged philanthropy to be introspective in the
way that it does it work (Jensen, 2013).
More recently, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) noted “the
philanthropic sector’s growing urgency to tackle inequities” as a source of inspiration for its
2018 report, Power Moves – Your Essential Philanthropy Assessment Guide for Equity and
Justice (p. 4). This guide acknowledges the positional and financial power that philanthropy
wields and encourages reflection on how to more equitably allocate resources (Ranghelli et al.,
2018). Within a year of the report’s release, two popular books (Edgar Villanueva’s
Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance in 2018 and
Anand Giridharadas’s Winners Take All, The Elite Charade of Changing the World in 2019)
offered powerful critiques of the philanthropic sector which they claim mirrors the oppressive,
colonizing systems they seek to transform through their giving. Villanueva (2018) argued that
money should be used as medicine to heal communities, and Giridharadas (2019) argued that the
global elite must reflect on their wealth, privilege, and influence if they truly want to improve the
lives of others. Both pointed out that the mostly White philanthropic sector must evolve to reflect

16
the more diverse world it seeks to change (Giridharadas, 2019; Villanueva, 2018). More recently,
Vanessa Daniel’s New York Times opinion piece “Philanthropists Bench Women of Color, the
M.V.P.s of Social Change” argues that the future of social change is at stake, with diversity
amongst philanthropic investments as the risk capital necessary to save democracy and the planet
(2019).
Even more recently, in the wake of the social and racial reckoning in the United States,
there have been more calls to diversify the philanthropic sector. Several articles have emerged
from a 2020 report issued by Echoing Green, a nonprofit organization that supports emerging
leaders, and Bridgespan Group, a nonprofit management consulting firm, titled Racial Equity
and Philanthropy – Disparities in Funding for Leaders of Color Leave Impact on the Table. It
found two major factors held philanthropy back from advancing social change, and both are
related to race: philanthropy must understand the role that race plays both in the challenges they
are trying to solve and how it affects which leaders and solutions they choose to invest in
(Dorsey, Bradach, & Peter, 2020a). In the Stanford Social Innovation Review, the authors noted
that a “realization is beginning to take hold that broad change cannot happen without
understanding the role that race and racism play” (Dorsey, Kim, et al., 2020, p. 2). Like much of
the national conversation, these recent books, articles, and reports represent a new sense of
urgency to diversify the sector and create more equitable and inclusive philanthropic practices.
Philanthropy seemed to respond to that call in the aftermath of the murder of George
Floyd in 2020, considered to be a precipitating event that spurred a philanthropic response to
increase its efforts to support racial equity in grantmaking. Candid’s review of grantmaking
found that between 2020-2023, grants for racial equity “increased dramatically,” with nearly
80,000 grants valued at $16.8 billion (Candid, 2024a, para. 4).

17
Growing Recognition of Racial Equity and Implicit Bias
Historically, philanthropy has taken a colorblind approach to its work, but in recent years,
foundations have sought to address issues of racial inequity more explicitly. Much of that work
was highlighted in 2006 with the release of Grantmaking with a Racial Equity Lens by the
Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity in partnership with GrantCraft (now Candid Learning
for Funders). As the national conversation in philanthropy evolved to address diversity, equity,
and inclusion, the focus has been on tangible strategies for funders. This includes the creation of
numerous frameworks, tools, and resources designed to support philanthropy’s journey to
prioritize communities of color in grantmaking.
One such foundation’s journey was documented in The Foundation Review (Bezahler,
2014). The author recommended several strategies to better support communities of color,
including diversifying foundation leadership, avoiding tokenism, and analyzing data with an
explicit focus on inclusion (Bezahler, 2014). This goal—to interrupt the dynamics of racial
oppression and support communities of color—is shared by others, including Gulati-Partee and
Potapchuk (2014), who also argued in The Foundation Review that foundations working to
disrupt racial inequity must also consider the often-overlooked concept of White privilege and its
effects within and beyond its organizations. In addition to exploring this concept, the article
provides specific tools for foundations to use in overcoming the privileged side of racial inequity
(Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014). Also, that year, in another article appearing in The
Foundation Review, Redwood and King (2014) identified racial equity across grantmaking as
both a “goal and a process” and sought to provide the sector with a framework example so that
others can organize similar efforts around racial equity (p. 1).

18
While this emphasis on explicitly addressing issues around race and diversity, equity, and
inclusion in philanthropy is important to moving the sector forward, there is little mention of the
effects that implicit assumptions about race may have on the sector. Dean-Coffey did refer to
J.R. Feagin’s “white racial frame” that works at an unconscious level, influencing the decisions
we make and our attitudes toward others (Dean-Coffey, 2018; Feagin, 2013). Feagin (2013)
defined this frame as “an overarching white worldview that encompasses a broad and persisting
set of racial stereotypes, prejudices, ideologies, images, interpretations and narratives, emotions,
and reactions to language accents, as well as racialized inclinations to discriminate” (p. 3). Nobel
Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has added to the framing research by noting that framing occurs
at two levels: the first level is the unconscious default thinking, and the second level is more
consciously aware and looks for validity beyond assumptions (Kahneman, 2011). Similarly, Dr.
Bryant T. Marks, an associate professor at Morehouse College and an accomplished researcher
who founded the National Training Institute on Race and Equity, contended that implicit biases
actually occur more frequently than explicit biases because it is happening at an unconscious
level. Therefore, the assumptions that we hold are a predictor of our everyday behavior because
its automatic (Marks, 2019). While addressing the explicit behavior is necessary, so too is the
importance of recognizing implicit biases, which have the potential for negative consequences if
not recognized and mitigated.
john a powell’s (lowercase intentional) cover story for NCRP’s Spring 2015 Quarterly
Journal was an explicit and urgent call to action for the sector to address the role of implicit bias
in philanthropy and grantmaking. As the leader of UC Berkeley Haas Institute for a Fair and
Inclusive Society and a recognized expert in the areas of civil rights, civil liberties, and structural
racism, powell implored philanthropy to join the emerging conversation around self-discovery,

19
noting that even small biases may have big ramifications on decisions about funding and thus
outcomes for society more broadly (powell, 2015). As evidence, powell cited a Greenlining
Institute report which found that less than 5% of charitable donations from 72,000 foundations
went to communities of color (Atkins & Aguilar, 2012; powell, 2015). powell outlined strategies
to reduce biases in the immediate and called on the sector to think about addressing inequity with
a historical perspective that accounts for the structural barriers of racism (powell, 2015).
Scott (2017) cited published findings from the IAT, which indicated that 75% of the
nearly 4 million people who took the test on race held an “automatic White preference”
(Greenwald et al., 2009; Scott, 2017, p. 24). Further research found that “IAT scores correlated
moderately with discriminatory judgements and behaviors” (Scott, 2017, p. 24). While Scott
cited this research, their own research did not delve into the specifics of implicit bias as they
sought to equip the social sector with tools to meet the challenges around achieving racial justice
more explicitly.
Most recently, research by Dr. Abhishek Bhati (2021), an assistant professor of political
science at Bowling Green State University, asked, “How does a donor’s implicit color biases
affect giving to beneficiaries living in developing countries?” (p. 340). Survey results from 750
participants who took the IAT on skin tone show that “higher implicit color biases reduce the
probability of giving a higher donation” (Bhati, 2021, p. 340). While focused on individuals, the
results, published in Voluntas, “provide important new evidence about the negative relationship
between implicit color bias and giving” (Bhati, 2021, p. 340).
Implicit bias has also been uplifted across the literature and as a topic at regional and
national conferences. The literature often points to this bias to as a potential area for exploration.
Both Villanueva (2018) and Daniel (2019) mentioned the role that implicit bias may play for a

20
predominantly White workforce who holds decision-making power within philanthropy. In
Power Moves – Your Essential Philanthropy Assessment Guide for Equity and Justice, Ranghelli
et al. (2018), encouraged a reflection on unconscious bias and how it may affect decision
making. Similarly, Floyd Mills, while serving as vice president of diversity, equity, and inclusion
at Council in Foundations, called out the report, The State of Change: An Analysis of Women and
People of Color in the Philanthropic Sector, stating that the various processes within
philanthropy deserve further examination to ensure they are free from bias (2017). This call was
echoed in Racial Equity and Philanthropy – Disparities in Funding for Leaders of Color Leave
Impact on the Table, whose authors suggested that the inevitability of implicit bias requires
explicit approaches to ensure racial equity (Dorsey, Bradach, & Peter, 2020a).
Power and Discretion of Philanthropy
The discretion and power wielded by private foundations are well documented in the
literature, as is their aversion to risk. While philanthropy may have the freedom to take a closer
review of its practices to ensure a more equitable allocation of resources that recognize its
implicit biases, it is unclear if it has the appetite.
Philanthropy has historically had much discretion from the government. It was not until
the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (TRA 1969) that regulations were introduced for foundations,
including an annual excise tax on investments, a required annual payout based on assets,
limitations on ownership, and public disclosure requirements (Frumkin, 1998, p. 269). While this
legislation was not insignificant, multiple scholars have pointed out that foundations still have
much latitude with regard to the allocation of their resources (Anheier & Hammack, 2010;
Callahan, 2017; Frumkin, 1998; Giridharadas, 2019; Lawrence, 2002; R. Reich, 2018;
Villanueva, 2018). Further, many have scrutinized this freedom and have called on private

21
foundations to increase transparency and develop accountability standards (Atkins & Aguilar,
2012; Callahan, 2017; Giridharadas, 2019; Lamarche, 2009; R. Reich, 2018; Villanueva, 2018).
Many scholars have noted that vast philanthropic resources often accompany power and
influence (Callahan, 2017; Giridharadas, 2019; Lawrence, 2002; Ranghelli et al., 2018; R. Reich,
2018; Villanueva, 2018). Lawrence (2002), who served as a researcher at the Aspen Institute
Roundtable on Community Change, positioned philanthropy as a community-builder and
claimed that “philanthropic institutions exert great influence over the intellectual frameworks
guiding community practices” and have helped normalize concepts like “human and social
capital,” “social networks,” and “soft skills,” among others (p. 50). Lawrence encouraged
philanthropy to use its power to promote new ways of thinking around race and White privilege
and to create new frameworks to guide community practice. Additionally, he called on
philanthropic researchers to act as “stimulus for what might ultimately amount to a much-needed
change in the community-building culture” of philanthropy (Lawrence, 2002, p. 53).
David Callahan, founder of the digital media site Inside Philanthropy, is alternatingly
critical and approving of the influence that philanthropic leaders have in his 2017 book The
Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. He argued that society is often
quick to celebrate philanthropic efforts without taking a deeper look at the motivations and
impacts of giving: “Philanthropy is becoming a much stronger power center and, in some areas,
is set to surpass government in its ability to shape society’s agenda” (Callahan, 2017, p. 7). Just a
year later, Robert Reich, a Stanford University professor who has written extensively about
philanthropy, published the book Just Giving: Why Philanthropy is Failing Democracy and How
it Can Do Better. In it, R. Reich (2018) claimed that “big philanthropy is often an unaccountable,
non-transparent, donor-directed, and perpetual exercise of power” (p. 7). Similarly, Giridharadas

22
(2019) argued that while wealthy individuals are more likely to give than ever before, they are
also doing so in ways that preserve their power rather than distribute it, going so far as to
describe these efforts as “symbolic scraps to the forsaken” (p. 6).
The skepticism of the sector’s power is also being internalized as more foundations seek
resources that help them recognize and mitigate their use of power. One such effort, led by
researchers at NCRP, resulted in the publication of Power Moves – Your Essential Philanthropy
Assessment Guide for Equity and Justice in 2018, which encouraged funders to respond to both
the current and overdue desire for social justice by exploring its own power (Ranghelli et al.,
2018). As a compliment to the research of its predecessors, Power Moves provided background
data and tangible strategies so that foundations may begin to examine and understand the role
that power plays in its grantmaking and so that it may advance justice and equity more
effectively and use its power for good (Ranghelli et al., 2018).
Despite philanthropy’s ample resources, discretion in their funding distribution, broad
power, and accompanying opportunity for positive influence, many scholars agree that the sector
is relatively risk-averse (Frumkin, 1998). As proof, Frumkin cited other researchers’ claims that
in recent decades, foundations have not always taken full advantage of their freedom and
resources (Freund, 1996; Frumkin, 1998; Nielsen, 1985; Odendahl, 1990). Giridharadas (2019)
claimed that members of the global elite use their wealth, privilege, and influence to fight for
justice and equality while at the same time denying their role in perpetuating systems that create
injustice and inequality. He explained that they are unwilling to risk their own power to truly
support the empowerment of others (Giridharadas, 2019). Others have argued that philanthropy
should leverage its freedom and power precisely to take risks (Callahan, 2017; R. Reich, 2018).
Further, when used appropriately, philanthropy can serve as the complimentary risk capital that

23
is unencumbered by the financial pressures of the for-profit sector or the constituency pressures
faced by the public sector (R. Reich, 2018).
Research conducted by Open Road Alliance and Arabella Advisors, published in 2017,
including a scan of the literature, a survey, and a review of relevant policies, revealed a gap in
the understanding of what constitutes risk for foundations and how they can best use risk as an
opportunity to address society’s most pressing challenges (Winkelstein & Whelpton, 2017). In
contrast to many of their peers, they did not claim that philanthropy is risk-averse, but rather that
philanthropy has not taken the time to “identify, understand, and manage risk” and therefore, its
efforts to take risks are “largely a noble intention” (Winkelstein & Whelpton, 2017, p. 93).
Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision on affirmative action has
thrown the legality of race-based grantmaking in philanthropy into question. A case in the 11th
Circuit Court “is an early test of the applicability of the Supreme Court’s admissions ruling to
philanthropic grant making” and questions “whether grant making is constitutionally protected
free expression or a type of binding contract subject to state law” (Daniels, 2024, para 4). The
case, American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund, will test whether race-based decision
making in philanthropy constitutes racial discrimination. The case has been sent to lower courts,
but many expect it may eventually go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling (Daniels, 2024). In
the meantime, “how nonprofits in those states and throughout the country respond will depend
on their risk tolerance, said Tahira Christmon, vice president of external affairs at ABFE, an
organization formerly known as the Association of Black Foundation Executives” (Daniels,
2024, para 28).

24
There is particular concern that even beyond grantmaking to specific racial groups, “a
website that suggests its beneficiaries are Black could attract lawsuits,” and simply asking
applicants their race, or collecting demographic data on the race of grantees—a process that
many grantmakers adopted in the past few years—could draw the attention of affirmative action
opponents looking to test the reach of the Supreme Court’s college admissions ruling (Daniels,
2024, paras. 32–33). There is the belief that “this case could have far-reaching implications for
how charities operate, particularly those formed to remedy structural inequities” (Colinvaux,
2024, para. 6). The case has spurred the creation of Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense
(LEAD) for Racial Justice by The California Black Freedom Fund, a “first-of-its-kind initiative
will provide legal education and accessible tools to help hundreds of nonprofit organizations and
philanthropic institutions navigate the legal landscape, prepare for this pivotal moment, and chart
a path forward” (California Black Freedom Fund, 2024, para. 1). There is an expectation
amongst philanthropic professionals that more of these efforts will arise to address this emerging
issue.
Summary
There is a gap in the literature around the extent of implicit racial bias in philanthropy.
There is little discussion around the role that implicit bias plays in individuals’ decision making
and its subsequent appearance in a foundation’s various structural elements. Similarly, there is
little acknowledgement of the role of implicit bias within the context of philanthropy when
considering the role of power dynamics, relationships, reputations, and inequities of wealth
accumulation.

25
This literature review provides an in-depth analysis of the progress and ongoing
challenges in addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the philanthropic sector. By
examining historical contexts, implicit biases, and the power dynamics at play, this review
highlights the need for continuous efforts to align philanthropic practices with the sector’s
espoused values of social justice and racial equity. The findings suggest that while significant
strides have been made, much work remains to ensure that philanthropic resources are equitably
distributed and that the sector truly reflects the diverse society it aims to serve.
The literature concludes that an immediate response is necessary on behalf of
philanthropy to address the issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion within its work. Further,
most of these efforts are grounded in explicit actions that individuals and their institutions can
take to reduce racial inequity in philanthropy. The literature around implicit bias within
philanthropy is not entirely absent but presents itself more as a call to action for the sector, with
limited sector-specific research upon which to implement strategies to understand and mitigate
implicit biases.

26
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATION
The literature review informed the framework I created for this study to investigate how
implicit racial bias could impact philanthropic decision making. This framework includes three
key areas: people, structure, and context. To create this framework, I examined 28 sources from
1996 through 2024. The majority of these sources were published in the last 10 years and include
academic journals, books, dissertations, and newspaper articles. These three key areas are
defined as follows:
1. People: Foundation board members, leadership, and staff
2. Structure: Foundation priorities and processes
3. Context: The history of philanthropy and wealth inequities
Framework for Investigation
People
The philanthropic sector has been and continues to be comprised of mostly White people.
To ensure more equitable distribution of philanthropic resources, multiple sources called for
greater racial diversity across all levels of philanthropy, including boards of directors, executive
leadership, and staff (Bezahler, 2014; Callahan, 2017; D5, 2016; Daniels, 2020; Lamarche, 2009;
Mills, 2017; Quiroz-Martin et al., 2007; Ranghelli et al., 2018; Redwood & King, 2014;
Tompkins et al., 2018; Villanueva, 2018).
In speaking about foundation boards of directors, Redwood and King (2014) suggested in
The Foundation Review that “while diversity is not sufficient for racial equity, it is a critical
component” (p. 4). Gara Lamarche, who has led Atlantic Philanthropies and served as a senior
fellow at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service,
encouraged philanthropy to take its efforts further when she told Villanueva in a 2017 interview,

27
The most fundamental thing that philanthropies can do is democratize themselves, so that
the decision making is made by people most affected. A more established way of doing
that, which still people don’t do enough, is to have boards that are really reflecting
communities. (Villanueva, 2018, p. 104)
Similarly, Villanueva (2018) suggested representation as step five of seven recommendations to
heal philanthropy, arguing that at least half of board members and staff should have lived
experience and reflect the communities that philanthropy is trying to serve. Further, Callahan
(2017) noted, like many of his peers, that philanthropy is at a “disadvantage” in understanding a
changing America because of its lack of diversity among its board members. (p. 283)
The philanthropic sector, particularly its board members and executive leaders, remains
mostly White “despite years of investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion” (Ranghelli et al.,
2018). The 2017 report from An Analysis of Women and People of Color in the Philanthropic
Sector gathered data from more than 900 foundations and found that representation of
“racial/ethnic minorities decreases as you move from the administrative level, to the professional
level, to the executive level” (Mills, 2017, p. 7). Similarly, Lori Bezahler (2014) pointed out in
The Foundation Review that “the increase in diversity within foundations has tended to remain at
the staff, rather than leadership level and its impact on the practice and focus of grantmaking is
unclear” (p. 3). This was echoed in the final report by D5 (2016), which noted that “people of
color continue to be underrepresented” at the board and executive leadership levels. In 2020, the
Council on Foundations released its latest Grantmaker Salary and Benefits Report, which
showed philanthropic leaders of color have remained “largely in stasis” since 2016 (Daniels,
2020).

28
Some have cited the diversity of decision-making staff as an important component of
reducing explicit racial bias within philanthropy (Lamarche, 2009; Villanueva, 2018). Lamarche
(2009) claimed that “who is at the table has a great deal to do with how the pie is divided” and
argued that “virtually all foundations… need to do much better in this respect” (p. 21). This
finding mirrors an earlier report in 2017 by the Council on Foundations, which found “only
small, albeit positive changes in the share of racial/ethnic minor staff over time” in the
philanthropic sector (Mills, 2017, p. 18). Research conducted by the Emerging Practitioners in
Philanthropy (EPIP), a national network of philanthropic professionals, and its subsequent report
in 2018, Dissonance and Disconnects, offered a different perspective on diversity, with its focus
specifically on entry and mid-level foundation staff. Among its key findings, respondents in the
national survey “generally rated their institutions low with respect to diversity, equity, and
inclusion, with a sizable gap between institutions’ goals and institutional realities” (Tompkins et
al., 2018, p. 3).
Many scholars have also pointed out that it is not enough for philanthropy to diversify
itself. It must also focus its efforts on how to retain and develop a more diverse talent pool so
that people of color feel a sense of belonging and are empowered to share their unique
perspectives and shape grantmaking (D5, 2016; Mills, 2017; Quiroz-Martin et al., 2007;
Villanueva, 2018).
Interestingly, the demographic profile in philanthropy also mirrors that of the nonprofit
sector. Candid released a 2024 report, The State of Diversity in the U.S. Nonprofit Sector, which
aggregated demographic data from nearly 60,000 participating nonprofits (Clerkin et al., 2024).
One of its key findings was that “the U.S. nonprofit sector becomes less diverse at higher levels
of leadership. The nonprofit workforce is slightly more racially diverse than the overall U.S.

29
adult population, but the sector’s racial diversity declines when it comes to nonprofit leadership”
(Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 5). Additionally, it found that “White male CEOs are most likely to lead
nonprofits with the most financial resources” and “CEOs who are Black, are BIPOC women, or
have a disability are more likely to lead organizations with the fewest financial resources”
(Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 6).
Philanthropy, across many professional levels, does not often reflect the communities it
seeks to serve, putting it at a disadvantage in terms of cultural competency to make meaningful
change. While there is scholarship that seeks to address racial inequity among philanthropic
boards, leadership, and staff, its focus on explicit representation of diverse people suggests an
opportunity for further research on the role of implicit bias across multiple levels of leadership
within private foundations. Implicit bias has the potential to impact many explicit attempts to
address racial inequity among board members, executive leadership, and staff, including how
individuals are appointed, hired, and promoted within a private foundation.
Structure
Several scholars have called on philanthropy to examine its internal structures, including
its priorities, policies, application processes, and evaluation practices, to understand whether it is
perpetuating racial inequity within its systems (Daniel, 2019; Davis, 2020; Dorsey, Bradach, &
Peter, 2020b; Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014; Lamarche, 2009; powell, 2015; Quiroz-Martin
et al., 2007; Redwood & King, 2014; K. Reich, 2020).
In 2007, GrantCraft (now Candid Learning for Funders) published Grantmaking with a
Racial Equity Lens that encouraged the sector to examine its grantmaking policies and practices
to advance their racial equity work while also acknowledging that “no single set of ‘best
policies’ works for every foundation and situation” (Quiroz-Martin et al., p. 13). In 2009,

30
Lamarche demanded the sector “look inward” but did not offer practical strategies on how to do
so (p. 21). In The Foundation Review, Gulati-Partee and Potapchuk (2014) asserted that
philanthropy’s primary challenge to addressing racial equity is rooted in its structural elements
that prioritize White dominance and White privilege and challenge philanthropy to examine its
operations. Dean-Coffey (2018) noted that “foundations are realizing that to address equity, they
must address race and racism within their institutions and in their external actions and decisions”
(p. 527). Dorsey, Bradach, and Peter (2020b) acknowledged White-centrism in philanthropic
processes, particularly in how philanthropy sets its priorities and evaluates its investments. In the
Stanford Social Innovation Review, Davis (2020) encouraged philanthropy to “change the way
we give” and confront our “well-polished theories of change” that hold philanthropy back from
lasting impact (p. 1). Kathy Reich (2020), a Ford Foundation official, penned an opinion piece in
The Chronicle of Philanthropy calling on philanthropy to consider more flexible funding, noting
that funders often set the priorities, resulting in nonprofit organizations “contorting their own
target outcomes” to meet funders’ needs (p. 27).
Some have more pointedly called out philanthropy to examine the role that implicit bias
plays within the design of these structures. In 2015, powell outlined several specific strategies to
reduce implicit bias within its grantmaking, including better data collection and monitoring as
well as clear objectives and an understanding of how to achieve desired goals. Daniel (2019)
pointed to implicit bias woven into the structural components of grantmaking that give
preference toward those who are able to articulate their work in “glossy proposals” over those
with “less slick proposals” (p. 3).

31
It has been established that White people dominate the philanthropic sector, and
therefore, it is White people who are designing the priorities, policies, application processes, and
evaluation practices to determine the impact of their philanthropic efforts. While there are calls
to examine the structure of philanthropy, there is a lack of research on the role that implicit bias
plays in the design and language of foundation grantmaking.
Context
In examining the literature regarding race, implicit bias, and the context of philanthropy,
many authors cited the power and privilege of philanthropy, and thus an opportunity afforded to
the philanthropic sector to address the historical racism in the sector and society more broadly
(Davis, 2020; Dean-Coffey, 2018; Giridharadas, 2019; Lamarche, 2009; Lawrence, 2002;
Villanueva, 2018).
In recognizing this power, Lawrence (2002) suggested that foundations have the
opportunity to “facilitate the research and collaboration necessary for the creation of new
narratives that better account for history, institutional factors, and white privilege” (p. 49). The
history that Lawrence refers to is outlined well by Lamarche (2009), who pointed to the elements
of structural racism as a denial of benefits, the inability to access credit and thus accumulate
wealth, and unfair rules around housing and employment, as well as slavery, Jim Crow laws,
segregation, and the mass incarceration of communities of color. The author believed that
philanthropy “should welcome scrutiny” and cited “the demand for foundations to turn the
mirror inward” following the proposed California Assembly Bill 624 (Lamarche, 2009, p. 21).
Dean-Coffey (2018) demanded that philanthropy come to terms with its history and
“those who have amassed tremendous wealth and engaged in philanthropy endeavors to
acknowledge and reflect upon the ways in which privilege (and thus racism) have been key

32
contributors to that wealth” (p. 529). Further, the author noted that philanthropy has the
opportunity and subsequent responsibility to “interrogate assumptions, experiment with
strategies, intentionally learn and share, and push thinking and practice” (Dean-Coffey, 2018, p.
535). This notion was echoed in Davis’s (2020) work, which asked philanthropy to “push back
against decades of inequitable policies that have prioritized profits over people, especially Black,
Brown, and Indigenous people” (p. 2). While not addressing race specifically, Giridharadas
(2019) suggested that today’s elite look only to find win-win strategies that allow them to
preserve their own wealth and deny that they may be “partly responsible for prying inequality as
unsustainably wide as it had gotten” (p. 62). Perhaps most poignantly, Villanueva (2018)
described a history of White supremacy that has allowed White people to “amass and consolidate
resources and wealth” and a philanthropic system that forces people of color who were
historically exploited to “apply for access to that wealth” (p. 20).
There is a long-term exhibition on philanthropy curated by scholars from the Smithsonian
that remains on display at the National Museum of American History. In Smithsonian Magazine,
its curator Amanda B. Moniz (2017) explained that philanthropy can best be defined as
“recognizing and supporting the humanity of others” but also that “on the flip side, the history of
philanthropy also reveals how the practice can reflect and reinforce inequity” (p. 4). Perhaps the
most often cited definition of philanthropy is from Payton and Moody’s (2008) Understanding
Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission, which explained philanthropy as “voluntary action for
public good” (p. 6). Former fundraiser and current academic Breeze (2021) noted that “prosocial
motivations, including compassionate responses to human suffering and a desire to improve
communities and wider societies, sit alongside at least four types of private motives identified in

33
historical studies: salvation, social control, social mobility and self-construction by the wealthy”
(p. 29). Indeed, understanding the lineage and motivations of philanthropy is important context.
The emergence of philanthropy as a sector “mostly took shape in the years between about
1885 and 1915 as multimillionaires like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and other rich
men and women sought practical, socially useful ways of disposing of surplus wealth” (Bremner,
1996, p. 159). Their motivations were questioned during those years and continue to be
questioned at present. One critic at the time was President Theodore Roosevelt, who, when John
D. Rockefeller proposed the creation of a private foundation, said, “No amount of charities in
spending such fortunes can compensate in any way for the misconduct in acquiring them”
(Giridharadas, 2019, p. 158). More recently, R. Reich (2019) reflected that these private
foundations “represented the wealth, potentially ill-gotten, of Gilded Age robber barons” (R.
Reich et al., 2019, p. 65). However, this was not what made them troubling; instead, it was
“because they were considered a deeply antidemocratic institution, an entity that could exist in
perpetuity and that was unaccountable except to a hand-picked assemblage of trustees” (R. Reich
et al., 2019, p. 65). Giridharadas (2019) summarized Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropic
philosophy in The Gospel of Wealth as “The money will be spent more wisely on you than it
would be by you. You will have your chance to enjoy our wealth, in the way we think you should
enjoy it” (p. 164). That culture of original intent continues to shape ideas and practices today.
While numerous researchers have advocated that philanthropy take a closer look at its
historical context, especially as it relates to racial inequity and the aggregation of wealth, there
was no discussion among these sources of the role that implicit bias plays in this understanding,
suggesting an opportunity for further study.

34
Summary
The philanthropic sector has not fully recognized or explored the extent of implicit bias in
their work. This includes bias within individuals, the structures they create, and the historical
context in which they operate. This study incorporated a framework to understand the role of
implicit bias among the people who design the structure of private foundations and exist within
the broader philanthropic context. With an understanding of how bias can be present in its
philanthropic efforts, staff may begin to overcome their biases to achieve greater equity in the
allocation of funding.

35
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY
This study addressed the following research question:
To what extent, and in what ways, do grantmaking professionals at private foundations
experience implicit bias in their grantmaking?
Methodology Selection
The methodological approach involved a three-part quantitative phase of data collection
and analysis that informed the second phase of qualitative data collection through one-on-one
interviews with philanthropic professionals. This process allowed me to “understand the data at a
more detailed level by using qualitative follow-up data collection to help explain the quantitative
results” (Creswell & Creswell, 2017, p. 126).
The quantitative approach allowed me to use a survey instrument I designed in Qualtrics
to ask participants descriptive questions about their identity and profession as well as about their
perceptions of bias in advance of taking the IAT. I chose the IAT on race to provide insight into
the extent of implicit racial bias among the study participants. The five-part test “measures the
strength of associations between concepts (e.g., Black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g.,
good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy) by asking respondents to “quickly sort words
into categories,” with a bias score generated “based on how long it takes a person, on average” to
respond to various sections of the test (Project Implicit, n.d., para. 1–2, 8). I analyzed the survey
responses and the IAT results and used that data to inform the follow-up questions for the
interviews. Creswell and Creswell (2017) described this as an explanatory, sequential mixedmethods design, where the “overall intent of this design is to have the qualitative data help
explain in more detail the initial quantitative results, thus it is important to tie together or to
connect the quantitative results to the qualitative data collection” (p. 220).

36
The qualitative approach I took, as Merriam and Tisdell (2015) described, was “interested
in (1) how people interpret their experiences, (2), how they construct their worlds, and (3) what
meaning they attribute to their experience” (p. 23). The qualitative process allowed me to
understand how bias may influence philanthropic professionals’ decision making by gathering
data through theoretical sampling, analyzing that data through comparisons of similarities and
differences, and then developing relationships of how the data interacts to form patterns
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). By exploring the results of their surveys and IAT results through
interviews, I followed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods process where “the intent of the
design is to follow up the quantitative results and explore the results in more depth” (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017, p. 221). Additionally, in keeping with this methodological approach, the
questions were all designed to be “general and open-ended” (Creswell & Creswell, 2017, p. 222).
Research Design
To identify the population sample, I searched Foundation Directory and GuideStar online
through Candid’s website (Candid, 2024a, 2024c). I used the advanced filters feature in
Foundation Directory to search for private foundations that include the broad terms of “social
justice” and “racial equity” (Candid, 2024a). The site automatically generated results for “ethnic
and racial minority rights” as the subject area and “ethnic and racial groups” as the population
served (Candid, 2024a). The query yielded 6,559 results, of which I exported the top 200
(Candid, 2024a). From this list, I eliminated 24 international foundations, as the focus of this
research is private foundations based in the United States. For the remaining 176 foundations, I
searched GuideStar to verify that each organization was a private foundation using the National
Taxonomy of Exempt Entities system, a coding system used to classify the type of tax-exempt
nonprofit organization (Candid, 2024a). This led to the elimination of 95 organizations that were

37
neither private grantmaking foundations (code T20) nor private independent foundations (code
T22), leaving a remainder of 81 potential foundations (Candid, 2024a). I reviewed each
foundation’s website to determine if they had an explicitly stated interest in supporting “racial
equity,” “social justice,” and/or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in their missions, visions,
values, or elsewhere on their website. I eliminated 18 foundations that did not have websites,
were duplicate listings, were associated with private companies, or had a planned sunset. Of the
remaining 63 foundations, I prioritized 32 that had such language clearly and prominently
featured on their websites. Per the recommendation of a committee member, I added two other
foundations that also met the criteria, for a total of 34 potential foundations to approach.
I conducted an in-depth analysis of those 34 foundations to identify staff who might
qualify for participation in this study. I prioritized foundations that had contact information
readily available and conducted outreach to 51 individuals to recruit participants. I emailed them
a copy of my information sheet (Appendix A), which outlined the research question, eligibility
criteria, activities required for participation in the study, and my contact information. Of those 51
individuals, eight declined, 12 accepted, and 31 were nonresponsive. Most of the declinations I
received were because people did not have time to commit to the multi-part research process. I
also recognize that it may have been difficult to recruit participants because of the sensitive
nature of the research topic, which may illuminate an individual’s racial bias. One dissertation
committee member encouraged me to use their name as a recruitment strategy, which proved to
be effective and increased the response rate, whether as a declination or acceptance.
Once a participant confirmed, I implemented the three-part quantitative phase of data
collection including an online survey (Appendix B), the IAT on race, and an analysis of their
most recent grantmaking data. The data and analysis informed the second phase of qualitative

38
data collection through one-on-one interviews with philanthropic professionals. Appendix C
presents the interview protocol.
Quantitative Phase
In Part 1, I emailed each participant a link to an online survey through Qualtrics to gather
basic demographic data and understand their perceptions of how biases might have an impact on
their grantmaking decisions, if at all.
Part 2 took place once they completed the survey. The participants were prompted to take
IAT on race and share their results with me via email. Results from the IAT provided insight into
the extent of implicit racial bias among the participants.
For Part 3, once I received a copy of their IAT, I began an analysis of the participants’
grantmaking history to better understand what communities their grantmaking supported. I used
Foundation Directory to search for each foundation and downloaded their most recent fiscal
year’s grantmaking (either 2022, 2023, or 2024), which provided the following information:
recipient name, recipient city, recipient state, recipient country, primary subject, year, and grant
amount. I used this information to obtain each grant recipient’s headquarters location and ZIP
code. I then visited the U.S. Census Bureau’s website to gather 2020 Decennial Census racial
data organized by ZCTA, or “generalized areal representations of U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
ZIP Code service areas” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, para. 1). A search of the ZIP code of each
nonprofit grantee’s headquarters resulted in the number of people in each of following categories
of race by ZCTA: Hispanic or Latino, White alone, Black or African American alone, American
Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone,
some other race alone, and population of two or more races. In a few cases, I was unable to
obtain data by ZCTAs because one foundation made some grants to individuals directly (who did

39
not have ZIP code data available in Foundation Directory), one foundation had international
grant recipients (that did not have ZIP Codes in the United States) or ZIP code data searches
resulted in error responses through the United States Census Bureau’s website.
Qualitative Phase
The semi-structured one-on-one interviews were recorded via Zoom and lasted
approximately an hour. The interview protocol was structured to follow the framework for
investigation outlined in Chapter 2 (people, structure, context) and discuss the results of the
survey, IAT, and the grantmaking analysis I conducted. The protocol included questions about
people (decision making of foundation board members, leadership, staff); structure (foundation
priorities, policies, procedures, evaluation, goals/desired impact, types of grants, and language);
context (relationships, responsibility, reputation); bias reflection (discussion of their results of
the IAT); and grantmaking (results and reflections on grantmaking analysis).
Participants
I originally anticipated recruiting 10 to 15 participants. I conducted purposeful sampling
of typical program staff because it “reflects the average person, situation, or instance of the
phenomenon of interest” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 97). This nonprobability sampling “is
based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and
therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015,
p. 96). To protect their identity, I use pseudonyms throughout this dissertation and do not include
any identifying information about their foundations. Ultimately, 10 of 12 confirmed participants
completed the survey, IAT, and interview. The number of participants reached “saturation,” an
idea that emerges out of grounded theory in which “one stops collecting data when the categories
(or themes) are saturated: when gathering fresh data no longer sparks new insights or reveals

40
new properties” (Creswell & Creswell, 2017, p. 186). To confirm that the profiles of individuals
were representative of the sector, I used the 2022 Diversity Among Philanthropic Professionals
(DAPP) Survey & Report produced by CHANGE Philanthropy, a collaboration of 10
philanthropic affinity groups that are “working to integrate diversity, inclusion, and social justice
into philanthropic practice” (CHANGE Philanthropy, 2023, About section, para. 1). The report
surveyed more than 2,000 individuals from 77 foundations across the country with the goal “to
help the philanthropic community better understand its workforce and leadership” (Jordan &
Kan, 2022, p. 6).
Individuals were eligible to participate in the study if they met the following criteria:
1. They had a minimum of 3 years’ worth of grantmaking experience at a private
foundation that has an explicit commitment to racial equity and/or social justice as
demonstrated in the foundation’s missions, visions, and values.
2. They had recommendation and/or decision-making power at this private foundation.
Each foundation’s website demonstrated explicit commitments to social justice and/or
racial equity through either the mission statement, vision statement, or list of values. I kept the
specifics of these commitments confidential to ensure that participants and their foundations
could not be identified. To provide context and understanding, below is an example of the Ford
Foundation’s website that outlines its commitment, which is, in many ways, similar to what I
found in participants’ foundations’ websites:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are core to our mission and to who we are as a
foundation. To address the challenges of a complex—and increasingly diverse—world,
we must make sure every person has a voice and a seat at the table. While we strive to
build a future grounded in justice, we know tackling inequality around the globe begins at

41
home. We are committed to not only creating a diverse team where everyone feels
represented and respected but also embedding equity and inclusion practices across our
work and philanthropy at large. For us, a culture of excellence means fully aligning the
way we work together with our work in the world so that we maximize the full range of
our potential impact. (Ford Foundation, 2023, para. 1–3)
Before I conducted the quantitative and qualitative study phases, I recruited a peer to
conduct a pilot test to inform the process. Piloting the survey instruments and interview protocols
provided valuable insight into the experience of study participants, particularly regarding
“questions, format, and instruction” as well as “how long the study will take” (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017, p. 154). This individual was assured anonymity and met the eligibility criteria
required of research participants.
I gathered data on each participant’s foundation through Foundation Directory and
administered the survey instrument to better understand their demographic profiles. As a
philanthropic professional, I had previously met three of the participants and considered them
peers in my professional community. All participants were guaranteed anonymity for themselves
and their respective foundations. Individuals and foundations are labeled numerically and are
consistent throughout this dissertation. Additionally, individuals and foundations correspond to
one another (i.e., Foundation 1 employs Individual 1). Because of the low number of
participants, I kept the quotes in subsequent chapters of this dissertation anonymous because
their responses could make them identifiable.
Procedures Followed
In September 2023, I submitted and received approval of my protocol from the
University of Southern California’s IRB. I subsequently began the process of identifying

42
potential foundations and interview subjects. I emailed potential participants, identifying myself
as a current student working on a doctorate in policy, planning, and development, as well as a
senior program officer at The Ahmanson Foundation, where I am currently employed. In some
cases, I also referenced a professional association, EPIP, in which I was actively involved. In
some cases, I also referenced one of my dissertation committee members to let the potential
participants know that this member thought they would qualify for this study.
All participants confirmed their interest in participating in writing. They completed the
online survey through Qualtrics, took the IAT on race, emailed me a copy of their results, and
agreed to participate in a Zoom interview to reflect on and share their experiences in
grantmaking. After I confirmed receipt of their survey and IAT results, I conducted the
grantmaking analysis described above before scheduling Zoom interviews to understand each
participant’s foundation’s grantmaking and the communities they serve. Interview questions
followed a semi-structured design informed by the results of each participant’s survey responses
and IAT results. All interviews were recorded and automatically transcribed with the
participants’ verbal permission. I reiterated the purpose of the study and assured participants that
I would use pseudonyms to protect their identity and not include any identifying information
about their foundations. I also took brief written notes during the Zoom interview, noting as
themes began to emerge. The Zoom interviews lasted approximately an hour. Finally, I used
post-interview memos to record observational data after the interviews.
Data Analysis
I followed Creswell and Creswell’s data analysis process while also relying on
researchers Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis. First, I organized the data
for analysis, including copies of the survey and the results of the IAT. This analysis was a

43
distinct phase that informed the Zoom interviews. Second, I organized and reviewed Zoom
recordings, Zoom transcriptions, the handwritten notes I took during the interviews, and the
memos I drafted after each interview. This second phase of analysis allowed me to gather “a
general sense of the information” and have an “opportunity to reflect on its overall meaning”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017, p. 192).
Next, I coded the data by hand, noting and describing themes that emerged within each
category of the framework I had designed, and included broad themes related to implicit bias
within people, structures, and the context of private philanthropy. Beyond these categories, I
asked participants to reflect on the results of the IAT and how bias could affect their decision
making. We also discussed the results of the grantmaking analysis that compared the zip codes of
all its foundation’s grantees’ headquarters in the most recent year available and compared it to
2020 census data on race to better understand what communities were being served in those
ZCTAs.
I chose thematic analysis because it offers what Braun and Clarke (2006) described as
“an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analyzing qualitative data” (p. 77). In their
paper, Braun and Clark provided clarity on an oft-misunderstood process of data analysis that I
used to describe both my approach to a review of the literature and the analysis of the data I
collected in this study. In defining themes, they explained, “A theme captures something
important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of
patterned response or meaning within the data set” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82).
I took a deductive theoretical approach guided by the literature review to develop a
framework that shaped the follow-up questions. In this analysis, there is a “constant moving back
and forth between the entire data set, the coded extracts of data that you are analyzing, and the

44
analysis of the data that you are producing” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 86). Additionally,
“writing is an integral part of analysis, not something that takes place at the end” (Braun &
Clarke, 2006, p. 86). I followed the six phases of analysis: “familiarizing yourself with your data,
generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes,
and producing the report” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 87). After this analysis, I further defined the
following themes according to my framework for investigation, outlined in Chapter 3:
People
• Motivation for careers in philanthropy: This theme describes the primary reasons
individuals join the philanthropic sector.
• Decision making: This theme explores how individuals decide which organizations to
recommend support towards, the regrets they experienced along the way, and how
they would make decisions if they were in leadership roles.
• Implicit bias in decision making: This theme explores how individuals perceive their
racial bias before and after taking the IAT.
Structure
• Grantmaking process: This theme explores the explicit and concurrently unspoken
characteristics of grantmaking processes and ways that philanthropic professionals
would like to improve these processes.
• Implicit bias in grantmaking: This theme describes how implicit racial bias can affect
decision making in philanthropy.
• Alignment/disconnection in grantmaking to communities of color: This theme
explores the perceptions of a foundation’s grantmaking to communities of color in

45
comparison to actual data on the racial composition of the communities in which the
nonprofits exist.
Context
• Responsibility: This theme identifies to whom and what philanthropic professionals
feel responsible in their roles at private foundations.
• Reputation: This theme describes how philanthropic professionals believe nonprofit
organizations would describe their foundation’s professional reputation.
After that, I summarized and discussed the themes’ interconnectedness, compared those
findings to the literature, and made suggestions for future research, a process described by
Creswell and Creswell (2017). When reporting direct quotes from respondents, I edited out filler
words and phrases like “ah,” “uh,” “um,” “like,” “so,” “you know,” and “right.” I edited direct
quotes for clarity and brevity to enhance readability while preserving the original intent and
meaning (Lingard, 2019). Finally, to support the validity of this research methodology, I
debriefed with a peer in my philanthropic network (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Summary
To answer the research question about the extent of implicit racial bias among
philanthropic professionals, I selected a three-part quantitative phase of data collection that
included a survey, the IAT, and a grantmaking analysis that informed the second phase of
qualitative data collection through Zoom interviews. In taking this explanatory, mixed-methods
approach to understand, analyze, and interpret the data, I considered the framework of themes I
identified through my literature review and developed codes and categorizing strategies to
identify patterns across the data. Chapter 5 details the result of this process.

46
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
After identifying a gap in the literature around understanding the extent of implicit racial
bias in philanthropy, I designed a study to explore how such bias could impact grantmakers’
decision making, private foundations’ structural elements, and how it appears in the broader
context of philanthropy. The study asks: To what extent and in what ways do grantmaking
professionals at private foundations experience implicit bias in their grantmaking?
This chapter presents this study’s results and findings, organized into three main sections:
characteristics of the participants, quantitative results, and qualitative findings. The chapter
begins with a detailed description of the participants’ demographics, ensuring a comprehensive
overview of the study’s sample and its alignment with broader sector trends. Following this, the
chapter presents the quantitative results obtained through the survey, the IAT, and grantmaking
analyses, highlighting key trends and patterns in how implicit racial bias manifests in the
philanthropic sector. Next, the qualitative findings are organized thematically around the
framework of people, structure, and context, providing a nuanced understanding of the
participants’ motivations, decision-making processes, and perceived biases. Finally, each section
concludes with a summary of the key findings.
Qualitative findings are organized according to the framework’s themes: people,
structure, and context. Within the theme of people, findings revealed the interviewees’
motivations for joining the philanthropic sector, how they make decisions in their grantmaking,
and how they perceive their bias before and after taking the IAT. Within the theme of structure,
findings underscore the grantmaking processes at their foundations, ways that implicit racial bias
can affect decision making, and the alignment and disconnection they find in their grantmaking
to communities of color. Finally, within the theme of context, findings reveal to whom and to

47
what philanthropic professionals feel responsible within their roles at private foundations, as well
as how they believe nonprofit organizations would describe their foundation’s professional
reputation.
Participants
Among the 10 participants from 10 different foundations, half had assets totaling less
than $500 million, but the range extended to assets in excess of $4 billion (Candid, 2024a).
Foundation Source, the largest management services firm for private foundations, noted in its
2022 Report on Private Philanthropy that, according to the IRS, 98% of private, non-operating
foundations in the U.S. have assets of less than $50 million (Foundation Source, 2022; Internal
Revenue Service, 2021). The focus on large private foundations in this research is because they
have professional staff whom I could interview, and “only a small share of U.S. foundations
employ paid staff” (Candid, 2002, p. 1). More than half of the foundations were geographically
located in the Western United States, with three foundations in Northeastern states and one in the
Midwest. The majority of foundations made more than 100 grants in their most recently
completed fiscal year, including 2022, 2023, and 2024 (Candid, 2024a). Table 1 presents a
complete list of sample foundation characteristics (Candid, 2024a).

48
Table 1
Foundation Characteristics, 2022, 2023, 2024 (N = 10)
Attribute Foundation(s)
Assets
< $500,000,000 5
$500 million–$2 billion 2
$2 billion - $4 billion 1
> $4 billion 2
Geographic Region
Northeast 3
West 6
Midwest 1
Number of Grants (most recent year)
< 100 3
100-300 5
> 300 2
Table 2 presents the participants’ characteristics. To ensure that I had a representative
sample of the philanthropic sector, I used data from the most recent DAPP Survey & Report
produced by CHANGE Philanthropy (2023), a collaboration of 10 philanthropic affinity groups
that are “working to integrate diversity, inclusion, and social justice into philanthropic practice”
(para. 1). The DAPP survey included 2,000 staff and board members from 77 foundations of all
sizes across the country with the goal “to help the philanthropic community better understand its
workforce and leadership” (Jordan & Kan, 2022, p. 6).

49
Table 2
Participant Characteristics (Participants N = 10)
Attribute Participant(s) 2022 DAPP Survey&
Report (N = 2000)
Age
< 29 years 10% 10%
30–39 years 30% 25%
40–49 years 50% 28%
50–59 years 0% 20%
> 60 years 10% 12%
Decline to State – 5%
Gender identity
Female 80% 69%
Male 20% 31%
Nonbinary – 1%
Self-described identity
Asian 20% 12%
Black or African American 10% 12%
Central American 10% -
Latinx/Latino/Latina 10% 7%
More than one Race or
Ethnicity
10% 10%
White 40% 53%
Middle Eastern – 1%
Indigenous – 1%
Decline to State – 4%
Tenure at foundation
0–5 years 30% 45%
6–10 years 50% 26%
11–15 years – 11%
> 15 years 20% 8%
Decline to State – 10%
Professional Titles
Director of Programs and
Operations
1 –
Program Associate 1 –
Program Director 1 –
Program Officer 5 –
Senior Director for
Capacity Building
1 –
Senior Program Manager 1 –

50
Overall, the participants are comparable to those surveyed in the 2022 DAPP Survey &
Report (Jordan & Kan, 2022). Their age range reflects that of the sector, with the majority in the
sector being younger than 49. A majority of the interviewees were female, which is reflective of
the staff in the philanthropic sector, as noted in the DAPP Survey & Report. The participants’
self-described identities generally aligned with the DAPP staffing, with nearly half of them
identifying as White. Regarding tenure, 80% of the interviewees had been at their foundations
for less than 10 years, which is comparable to the DAPP Survey & Report, which notes that 71%
of employees have been at their foundations for less than 10 years. Table 2 provides a complete
list of the participants’ characteristics, including professional titles.
Quantitative Results
This study began with a three-part quantitative phase of data gathering and analysis. The
first part included a short Qualtrics survey to gather demographic data and understand the
interviewees’ perceptions of how biases may impact their grantmaking processes, if at all. Then,
they took that IAT on race and shared their results with me via email. Finally, I analyzed the
racial composition of the communities each foundation funds.
Quantitative Part 1: Survey Instrument
The first part of the research included a survey instrument to better understand the
demographic profile of participants (Tables 1 and 2). It also asked questions about the IAT
(Table 3), how they thought implicit racial bias might affect the grantmaking process (Table 4),
and an estimation of their foundation’s grantmaking to nonprofits serving communities of color
(Table 5).

51
Table 3
IAT Survey Questions (Participants N = 10)
Question Participant(s)
The Implicit Association Test will indicate the degree to which
you have an implicit preference for White people. Before
you take the test, what do you think your results will
indicate?
Slight automatic preference for Black people 0
Moderate automatic preference for Black people 1
Strong automatic preference for Black people 1
No automatic preference 2
Slight automatic preference for White people 4
Moderate automatic preference for White people 2
Strong automatic preference for White people 0
Table 4
IAT Survey Questions (Participants N = 10)
Question Participant(s)
At what points in your grantmaking process could implicit
racial bias impact your decision making, if at all? (select all
that apply)
Invitation to Apply 10
Letter of Inquiry (LOI) 6
Full Proposal/Application 7
Site Visit/Phone Call/Zoom Meeting 7
Reporting Requirements 3
Evaluation 3
Other (please specify): Application Design 1

52
Table 5
IAT Survey Questions (Participants N = 10)
Question Participant(s)
What percentage of your foundation’s grantmaking do you
think is allocated to nonprofits serving communities of
color?
Less than 60% 0
60% 1
70% 2
80% 3
81–90% 3
100% 1
Quantitative Part 2: Implicit Association Test
The second quantitative part of the study involved participants taking the IAT on race and
sharing the results with me via email, as displayed in Table 6. Results are organized by the speed
of response as slight, moderate, fast, or equal. Project Implicit also “employs randomization to
mitigate potential alliteration effects among participants,” which is why some responses are
“African Americans” and “European Americans” or “Black people” and “White people” (The
Project Implicit Response Team, personal communication, August 2, 2024). “This strategy helps
in examining the impact of different label pairings (e.g., “Black + Bad” vs. “African American +
Bad”) and controlling for any biases the categories might introduce” (The Project Implicit
Response Team, personal communication, August 2, 2024). The interviewees’ IAT results
revealed that five individuals had a bias against European Americans or White people in varying
degrees, two exhibited no bias, and three had a bias against African Americans or Black people.

53
Table 6
IAT Results (Participants N = 10)
Attribute Participant(s)
The Implicit Association Test results
You were slightly faster at sorting ‘European Americans’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’ than ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’ with
‘Good’
1
You were moderately faster at sorting ‘European Americans’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’ than
‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’
with ‘Good’
2
You were moderately faster at sorting ‘White people’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘Black people’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with ‘Good’
1
You were much faster at sorting ‘White people’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘Black people’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with ‘Good’
1
You were about equally fast at sorting ‘African Americans’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’ and at
sorting ‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Good.’
1
You were about equally fast at sorting ‘Black people’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with ‘Good’ and at sorting ‘White
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good.’
1
You were slightly faster at sorting ‘African Americans’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’ than
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’
with ‘Good’
1
You were moderately faster at sorting ‘African Americans’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’ than
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’
with ‘Good’
1
You were much faster at sorting ‘Black people’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘White people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘White people’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good’
1

54
Quantitative Part 3: Grantmaking Analysis
For the third part of the study, I conducted a grantmaking analysis using each
participant’s most recent foundation grantmaking data available on Foundation Directory. With a
complete list of the nonprofits they funded in 2022, 2023, or 2024, I obtained each grant
recipient’s headquarters’ ZIP code. I then entered that ZIP code into the U.S. Census Bureau’s
website to obtain the racial data of the populations living in those ZCTAs (Candid, 2024a,
2024c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Table 7 presents the results of that analysis and compares
individuals who identify as “White alone” to a consolidated list I defined as “communities of
color” that are represented by the following racial categories on the U.S. Census Bureau’s
website: American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Black or African American
alone, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, population of two
or more races of two or more races, and some other race alone. Appendix D provides a more
detailed grantmaking analysis that breaks down each racial category.
Table 7
Grantmaking Analysis Results (Foundations N = 10)
Foundation Communities of color White alone
Foundation 1 70% 30%
Foundation 2 80% 20%
Foundation 3 58% 42%
Foundation 4 79% 21%
Foundation 5 66% 34%
Foundation 6 60% 40%
Foundation 7 77% 33%
Foundation 8 65% 35%
Foundation 9 71% 29%
Foundation 10 83% 17%

55
Summary of Key Quantitative Results
Results from the three-phase quantitative portion of the study revealed:
• More than half of the participants believed their IAT would show a slight, moderate, or
strong preference for White people. However, results of participants’ IAT indicate that
half of all participants were slightly faster, moderately faster, or much faster at sorting
European Americans/White people with the word “bad” and African Americans/Black
people with the word “good.”
• All participants believed that implicit racial bias could impact their grantmaking
decisions, particularly at the invitation-to-apply stage and other key decision points.
• More than half of the participants estimated that their foundations allocated at least 80%
of grantmaking to nonprofits serving communities of color.
• Grantmaking data indicated that more than half of the foundations’ nonprofit grantees
were located in racially diverse ZCTAs, predominantly serving communities of color.
Qualitative Findings
The second phase of the study included in-depth qualitative data collection through oneon-one Zoom interviews with philanthropic professionals. Following the analysis described in
Chapter 3, I developed and defined the following themes, which are summarized below.
People
To answer the research question, I asked the interviewees about their motivations to
pursue their careers in philanthropy; how they make decisions (including how they decide which
organizations to recommend support toward, the regrets they experienced along the way, and
how they would make decisions if they were in leadership roles); and about implicit bias in

56
decision making (including how individuals perceive their racial bias before and after taking the
IAT).
Motivation for Careers in Philanthropy
Of the 10 interviewees, seven had previous experience in the nonprofit sector, primarily
working in program development or fundraising. Despite this experience, six of them explained
that they did not really understand the extent and impact of the philanthropic sector before they
joined their foundations. One shared, “Philanthropy as a sector I knew existed. I had written
grants before, but I was nowhere or by no means aware of how large or structured or influential
it could be.”
Another individual offered, “I didn’t really know what it was until I started to be honest.
But I just knew it was sort of, like, the third thing other than government and nonprofit.” The
reasons the participants joined philanthropy included a desire to see the nonprofit sector from
“the other side” or “a different vantage point to learn about other tools and strategies for moving
that work forward.” Eight identified their interests in pursuing “mission-driven work” or “valuesaligned work” as the primary reasons for joining the philanthropic sector. One individual
remarked, “I wanted to do something that involved helping people, uplifting the community that
I lived in.”
Decision Making
Seven interviewees identified or emphasized BIPOC leadership when determining which
nonprofit organizations they should support.
I really try to understand who are the strong leaders in a community who can reach
community residents… I do look at who are the BIPOC leaders because those are the

57
leaders that we know are very much underfunded, and we need to ensure that BIPOC
voices are at the table… making decisions about their own communities.
One foundation is taking it a step further, as one participant stated,
Internally, we do not traditionally fund White-led organizations. That’s not really an
external thing that we talk about, but I think it makes sense. Given the issues that we’re
covering and the value of supporting community members that are from areas directly
impacted by the issues.
Half of all interviewees cited racial equity, racial justice, and/or community power
building as the lens through which they see this work and seek alignment with potential grantees.
Finally, eight of the interviewees also noted that they rely on their foundation’s strategic plan,
framework, or rubric when making decisions about which nonprofits to fund. In some cases,
these respondents overlapped, as one person said,
We have established guidelines for every portfolio. … We really center racial justice.
That is our North Star. I think the events of George Floyd and COVID has really
highlighted the pervasiveness of racism in our country, so I think that we have been really
critical and in making BIPOC-led organizations a priority.
Not every grantmaking decision led to grantee success, and all interviewees shared
stories about grants they regretted making. Half of all interviewees noted that they regretted
decisions that came at the urging or recommendation of foundation leaders, many of whom had
relationships with grantees’ leaders: “I felt really icky [about] how we did grantmaking before
we had a set strategy. … It was a lot of ‘this executive is my friend.’” One participant noted that
when confiding their frustration with this practice, individuals in senior roles acknowledged how
they felt but explained that “it’s just part of it.” Another individual responded,

58
There are some grants that we have made that are the continuation of all the
relationships from my predecessor and also from the president of the foundation
that seem to have been primarily because they are friends and allies of our
grantees, and perhaps their work wasn’t evaluated with the same strict criteria.
There are a few of those, but I’m actually moving some of them off my portfolio
now.
Given the opportunity, six interviewees said they would make different decisions than
their foundation leadership if they were in charge as sole decision makers. Of those six, two said
it would “definitely be different,” and one said it would “absolutely” be different. One provided
some additional context:
It’s not necessarily a disagreement. It’s just that I want to color outside the lines of our
strategy. But we still have this very specific strategy, and we’re working on broadening
it. We have these new racial equity goals that our board adopted, and we are in discussion
about how we implement them, so I have hope, but it’s a journey.
Three individuals believe they are “aligned” or “generally agree” on grantmaking
decisions with their foundation’s leadership and do not anticipate it would be very different if
they were the sole decision maker. Finally, one person was unsure whether it would be different
if they were the sole decision maker at their foundation.
Implicit Bias in Decision Making
I surveyed participants in advance of taking the IAT and asked them to speculate on the
degree to which they may have an implicit preference for White people. In comparing their
predictions and actual results, only one accurately predicted their results, as indicated in Table 8.

59
Table 8
IAT Predictions and Results
Individual IAT prediction IAT results Accurate?
Individual 1 Moderate
automatic
preference for
White people
You were equally fast at sorting
‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
and at sorting ‘European Americans’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’
with ‘Good’
No
Individual 2 Strong automatic
preference for
Black people
You were slightly faster at sorting
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’
than ‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘European Americans’ with
‘Good’
No
Individual 3 Moderate
automatic
preference for
White people
You were slightly faster at sorting
‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
than ‘European Americans’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’ with
‘Good’
No
Individual 4 No automatic
preference
You were much faster at sorting ‘White
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black
people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘Black
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White
people’ with ‘Good’
No
Individual 5 Slight automatic
preference for
White people
You were moderately faster at sorting
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’
than ‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘European Americans’ with
‘Good’
No
Individual 6 Slight automatic
preference for
White people
You were about equally fast at sorting
‘Black people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White
people’ with ‘Good’ and at sorting
‘White people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black
people’ with ‘Good.’
No
Individual 7 Slight automatic
preference for
White people
You were moderately faster at sorting
‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
than ‘European Americans’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’ with
‘Good’
No

60
Individual IAT prediction IAT results Accurate?
Individual 8 Slight automatic
preference for
White people
You were much faster at sorting ‘Black
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White
people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘White
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black
people’ with ‘Good’
No
Individual 9 Moderate
automatic
preference for
Black people
You were moderately faster at sorting
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’
than ‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘European Americans’ with
‘Good’
Yes
Individual
10
No automatic
preference
You were moderately faster at sorting
‘White people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black
people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘Black
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White
people’ with ‘Good’
No
I asked the participants to self-identify in the survey in advance of taking the IAT. Table
9 presents the comparison of their identities to their IAT results.
Table 9
Participants’ Identities and IAT Results
Individual Self-described identity IAT results
Individual 1 White You were equally fast at sorting ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Good’ and at sorting
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’
Individual 2 Central American You were slightly faster at sorting ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Good’ than ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Good’
Individual 3 White You were slightly faster at sorting ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Good’ than ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Good’

61
Individual Self-described identity IAT results
Individual 4 White You were much faster at sorting ‘White people’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good’
than ‘Black people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White
people’ with ‘Good’
Individual 5 Asian You were moderately faster at sorting
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’ than
‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
Individual 6 White You were about equally fast at sorting ‘Black
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with
‘Good’ and at sorting ‘White people’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good.’
Individual 7 Multi-Racial (Black and
European with some
Indigenous ancestry)
You were moderately faster at sorting ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Good’ than ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Good’
Individual 8 Latina You were much faster at sorting ‘Black people’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with ‘Good’
than ‘White people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black
people’ with ‘Good’
Individual 9 Black or African
American
You were moderately faster at sorting
‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’ than
‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
Individual 10 Asian You were moderately faster at sorting ‘White
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with
‘Good’ than ‘Black people’ with ‘Bad’ and
‘White people’ with ‘Good’
During the interview, after everyone took the IAT, I asked if the results surprised them.
Four of them were surprised, four were not surprised, and two answered that they were not quite
sure how to feel about the results. Four responded that the reason they were not surprised by the
results was that they had taken the test before and received similar results. Two individuals who
had taken the test before explained that they had received similar results but were still surprised.

62
One was slightly faster at sorting African Americans with the word “bad” and European
Americans with the word “good” than European Americans with “bad” and African Americans
with “good,” and they remarked,
I was slightly hoping I would have been more in that equal quickness.… I would like to
think that I have no bias, but I’m definitely more comfortable or less guarded in a room
full of White people than folks of different races or ethnicities.
The other individual was much faster at sorting Black people with “bad” and White
people with “good” than White people with “bad” and Black people with “good” and, when
asked if they were surprised, responded, “Yes, oh my God, yes. I was like, no, no, I was, like,
this is wrong. Oh, my God.” Table 10 outlines each participant’s IAT results and whether those
results surprised them.

63
Table 10
IAT Surprise
Individual IAT results Surprised?
Individual 1 You were equally fast at sorting ‘African Americans’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
and at sorting ‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’
Yes
Individual 2 You were slightly faster at sorting ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’
with ‘Good’ than ‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
Unsure
Individual 3 You were slightly faster at sorting ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’
with ‘Good’ than ‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’
Yes
Individual 4 You were much faster at sorting ‘White people’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘Black
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with ‘Good’
No
Individual 5 You were moderately faster at sorting ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’
with ‘Good’ than ‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
Yes
Individual 6 You were about equally fast at sorting ‘Black people’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with ‘Good’ and at
sorting ‘White people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black
people’ with ‘Good.’
No
Individual 7 You were moderately faster at sorting ‘African
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘European Americans’
with ‘Good’ than ‘European Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘African Americans’ with ‘Good’
No
Individual 8 You were much faster at sorting ‘Black people’ with
‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with ‘Good’ than ‘White
people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good’
Yes
Individual 9 You were moderately faster at sorting ‘European
Americans’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘African Americans’
with ‘Good’ than ‘African Americans’ with ‘Bad’
and ‘European Americans’ with ‘Good’
Unsure
Individual
10
You were moderately faster at sorting ‘White people’
with ‘Bad’ and ‘Black people’ with ‘Good’ than
‘Black people’ with ‘Bad’ and ‘White people’ with
‘Good’
No

64
Structure
To answer the research question, I asked the participants about their grantmaking process
(including the explicit and concurrently unspoken characteristics of grantmaking processes and
ways that the interviewees would like to improve these processes); ways they could imagine
implicit bias could affect their grantmaking; and alignment and disconnection in their
grantmaking to communities of color (including their perceptions of a foundation’s grantmaking
to communities of color in comparison to actual data on the racial composition of the
communities in which the nonprofits they support are headquartered).
Grantmaking Process
While each foundation follows its own grantmaking process, several share similar
characteristics. Half of the foundations were invitation-only and the other half defined
themselves as responsive grantmakers that have more open processes for applying for a grant.
While the foundations’ websites clearly outlined their approaches to philanthropy, eight
interviewees also described situations that are often unspoken but run concurrently with the
explicit policies and procedures of their foundations. This includes influence from executive
leaders or boards of directors, which was often accompanied by regrets on behalf of the
individuals I surveyed, as noted above. Additionally, the participants identified savvy
development staff who know how to navigate complex requests or referrals from other
foundations that bypass some formal processes. One said,
It means that we’re inviting people we know, so it’s only people who’ve gotten in the
door already are being invited to apply. You have to already be in the network or be well
connected.”
Another said,

65
Lots of people don’t know that they can make special appeals to foundations. They don’t
know that they can call the CEO or call the program officer and say, can you make this
really big grant out of cycle.
After each philanthropic professional described their respective foundation’s process, I
asked a series of follow-up questions regarding language availability and accessibility for
individuals with disabilities. All foundations have some written component, either in the form of
a letter of inquiry (LOI) or a written application. None of the foundations currently offer these
written components in any language other than English. Two foundations, however, have
historically offered applications in other languages, and three foundations are currently in
conversations about how to introduce or reintroduce this component to make their processes
available in languages other than English.
Eight of the 10 interviewees reported that there are no provisions in place to make
accommodations for individuals with disabilities that may affect their ability to apply for
funding. One person reported that their foundation had previously used various systems to
support individuals throughout the process who may need special accommodations. Another was
not sure if such accommodations were available. In answering these questions, half of the
interviewees commented that these were “good questions,” “great questions,” or that “it would
be great.” One participant shared,
It is something that I have actually brought up in our foundation multiple times, but we
haven’t done any accessibility audits of our processes. The process is mostly driven by
what we’ve always done, and I think that’s a conversation we need to have going
forward.

66
The interviewees shared several ideas on how they would change their processes if it
were up to them to decide. Seven of them would eliminate written proposals. One of their
foundations is piloting this right now:
I personally really love that for general operating support, we don’t require a proposal.
And the program officer has to do all the internal kind of case making because I feel like
it makes you really have to understand the organizations you’re supporting because you
just can’t kind of copy and paste from their proposal and also just makes it obviously a
lot easier for them.
Five individuals expressed a desire to simplify their processes and offered various
strategies for doing this, including moving toward more conversations with grantees instead of
applications or reports, shortening required written responses, and encouraging organizations to
cut and paste sections from proposals they may have submitted to other foundations. Four
participants acknowledged that their current processes are burdensome for applicants and take
time away from programmatic work helping the community. One interviewee described these
practices as “extractive.”
Three interviewees expressed a desire to make their websites more accessible and
transparent. One shared that their foundation was in the process of updating its website and was
hopeful that it would be more transparent about its process and strategy as well as the types of
organizations they are looking to fund: “I think for a long time, without purposefully meaning
to, we’ve been pretty opaque in how we do things, and I’m definitely excited to have us be more
transparent and accessible.” Others suggested they would like to use intermediary organizations
to streamline grantmaking, provide multi-year support, or use review panels for decision making
with community members. Only one interviewee responded that there was not much they would

67
change about their grantmaking process, saying, “I think that some of what I really appreciate is
that we’ve taken into account what some of our institutional and personal biases are, and we’ve
built that into the process to check ourselves.”
Implicit Bias in Grantmaking
All participants identified ways that implicit bias could affect their grantmaking. When I
asked them to imagine the ways, four responded that it was in their process in varying ways.
Three explained that it was in every process at their foundation, and one explained that it was in
everybody. Separately, four others specified that implicit racial bias can appear most often in
written applications and proposals. One explained,
I do think that people get caught up in how much people put on paper, which translates to
how well somebody writes the proposal. And of course, when you have an organization
or an institution with a development team, they’re going to say all the right things and put
together something very polished and beautiful, and then you’ll interpret it as they do
really good work when another proposal may be really challenging to read but it doesn’t
mean that they don’t have a strong leader, and they’re not reaching community in ways
that need to be raised.
Another individual pointed to “preconceived expectations” that one may have around
certain aspects of the proposal, particularly how to create a line-item budget or how to report on
the outcome of a grant. One interviewee remarked that,
In efforts to simplify the application, sometimes it’s made worse by instead of
giving somebody an opportunity to say whatever they need to say, we’re going
to give them 36 words, or we’re going to give them multiple choice, which is
based in some of our biases.

68
When asked a second time, later in the interview, whether there were other ways that they
thought bias could affect their decision making that we did not discuss, four interviewees
responded with a “no,” and six provided additional thoughts. Two respondents either alluded to
or explicitly stated communications. One believed it was in “everything we do.” Another noted
that implicit racial bias may be present in both the hiring process and efforts to diversify the
board of directors. One respondent explained the blind spots and fragility that certain
communities of color may experience toward other communities of color, saying, “How do I
hold us to the standard that I hold us to when I’m in groups with mixed race, with a lot of
different kind of racial identities?” Similarly, another respondent was interested in
understanding bias not just against Black or African Americans but more broadly to understand
whether they hold bias against other racial and ethnic groups.
Alignment/Disconnection in Grantmaking to Communities of Color
The survey asked respondents to estimate what percentage of their foundation’s
grantmaking they thought was allocated to nonprofits serving communities of color. Table 11
shows each respondent’s estimation and provides results of the grantmaking analysis I conducted
of each foundation’s most recent years grants that compared zip codes of all its grantees’
headquarters to 2020 census data on race organized by ZCTAs (Candid, 2024a, 2024c; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2024). The racial categories by ZCTAs of the analysis include American Indian
and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Black or African American alone, Hispanic or Latino,
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, population of two or more races, and some
other race alone (Candid, 2024a, 2024c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Additionally, Table 11
outlines the accuracy of professionals as either underestimates, overestimates, or accurate
estimations.

69
Table 11
Grantmaking Estimation and Analysis Results (Foundations N = 10)
Estimation Analysis Accuracy
Individual 1 85%–90% 70% Overestimate
Individual 2 80% 80% Accurate
Individual 3 60%+ 58% Overestimate
Individual 4 100% 79% Overestimate
Individual 5 85% 66% Overestimate
Individual 6 ~80% 60% Overestimate
Individual 7 more than 80% 77% Overestimate
Individual 8 70% 65% Overestimate
Individual 9 70% 71% Underestimate
Individual 10 80% 83% Underestimate
All respondents estimated that more than 60% of their foundations’ grantmaking was
supporting communities of color; however, the grantmaking analysis revealed that in at least one
case, it was as low as 58% (Candid, 2024a, 2024c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). The highest
estimation was 100% by one person, but no foundations exceeded 83% in the grantmaking
analysis (Candid, 2024a, 2024c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Overall, 70% of respondents
overestimated their foundation’s grantmaking to communities of color, 20% underestimated it,
and only 10% accurately estimated it (Candid, 2024a, 2024c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024).
I shared each foundation’s results with the interviewee from that foundation, pasting the
grantmaking analysis into the Zoom chat feature and/or emailing it to them. When I asked them
to reflect on this data during the interview, three individuals were surprised, with one
exclaiming, “Oh, wow!” and another saying, “Oh, my! Gosh!” Four interviewees had follow-up
questions about the methodology and pointed out that there may be a discrepancy between a
nonprofit’s headquarters’ location and the communities it is actually serving, a limitation I
acknowledged to them during the interview and in Chapter 1 of this study.

70
When asked if their foundation was tracking demographic data on race in the
communities their grantees serve, I received varying responses. Four interviewees responded that
their foundations are tracking this data. Three of them quickly answered that their foundations
were tracking it. Two found the data helpful in their decision-making process. One explained that
their foundation had been tracking it for a while, but it “was actually pretty hard for
organizations to fill out, and I think we asked for it without really knowing how we were going
to use it, and we did not use it.” Initially, the fourth was unsure if they were tracking racial
demographic data of grantees but came back to it later in the interview after remembering a
recent meeting in which this was discussed. Three interviewees responded that their foundations
are currently tracking this data, but the analysis piece is a work in progress, and they are not part
of those conversations. Two others responded that their foundations are not tracking this type of
racial demographic data. Finally, one person was unsure if this was being tracked internally but
did not think it was happening.
Six participants shared that their foundations were tracking the demographic data on race
for the nonprofit’s leadership, either its executive leadership or board of directors. One
respondent shared, “I think the identity of the leadership is really important, but it shouldn’t be
the only thing that we look at.” Another offered, “All we track is, or the thing that we have
shown, is the demographics of leadership.”
Context
To answer the research question, I asked the interviewees about they perceive their
professional responsibilities and reputations in the nonprofit sector.

71
Responsibility
When I asked these philanthropic professionals to whom they felt responsible in their role
at their foundation, nearly all paused, and three asked clarifying questions about exactly what I
meant. I explained that the question was designed to be open-ended. Five individuals identified
“organizations,” “partners,” or “grantees” as the group to which they felt responsible first. Four
identified the communities themselves as the group to which they felt responsible first. Finally,
one stated, “The actual work, not the people doing the work,” as the group to which they felt
responsible first. The interviewees rounded out their list, identifying their “team” or their
“foundation,” and two identified their “board,” among other groups. One acknowledged the
“organizations that we decide not to fund,” and another acknowledged family, saying they also
felt responsible to family members who reflect the community the foundation hopes to serve.
Table 12 outlines everyone’s specific response to the question and the order in which they
identified each group.

72
Table 12
Responsibility
Individual First Second Third
Individual 1 “community
organizations” and
“partners”
“team that I’m a part of”
Individual 2 “communities that I
serve”
Individual 3 “grantee partners” “program” and
“strategy”
“the foundation”
Individual 4 “the org, always the org”
Individual 5 “the actual work, not the
people doing the work”
“health of the
movement”
Individual 6 “communities that our
grantees work in”
“not necessarily the
grantees, although I
do feel some of that”
“organizations that
we decide not to
fund”
Individual 7 “grantee partners in
community
organizing”
“the Board” “folks doing the
work”
Individual 8 “communities, BIPOC
communities, Black,
Brown, Indigenous
communities, Asian
communities”
“my parents, my
grandfather”
Individual 9 “community members” “organizations serving
these folks”
“my team”
Individual 10 “grantees, I guess” “Ultimately, the board”
Reputation
When asked how they believe nonprofit organizations would describe their foundation’s
professional reputation, the interviewees provided a wide variety of responses. Three cited their
foundations’ participation in the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s (CEP) Grantee and
Applicant Perception Report, a confidential survey tool administered by CEP that solicits
feedback on a variety of foundation processes. The most common theme among respondents was
“flexibility,” which four of them shared. Three reflected on their internal culture and

73
organizational norms to cite examples of the culture they believe they are projecting. For two
foundations, it was a positive reputation that acknowledges and tries to quell the inherent power
dynamics of the grantor/grantee relationship. For one foundation, it was an acknowledgement
that each staff member has a different way of relating to grantees, which can affect whether they
view the foundation in a positive or negative way. They said,
There are some staff we have in the foundation who are very relational and others who
are very transactional and don’t build those bridges with their partners. … I don’t think
that’s a shared practice or value across the entire foundation.
Three interviewees shared that they believe their foundations are considered forwardthinking in the centering of race as well as issues around diversity, equity, and inclusion. Two
funders considered the power dynamic inherent in the grantor/grantee relationship, with one
suggesting that I “take it with a grain of salt.”
Summary of Key Qualitative Findings
Results from the qualitative interview portion of the study revealed several key findings
within the framework of people, structure, and context.
People
• Before working at their foundation, participants did not fully understand the extent and
impact of the philanthropic sector but were interested in pursuing mission-driven or
value-aligned work.
• Only one individual accurately predicted their IAT results. Post-IAT, four were surprised
by their results, while others were not, acknowledging persistent bias.
• A majority of interviewees emphasized BIPOC leadership in their decision-making
process about which nonprofits received funding.

74
• Many acknowledged a shadow system of grantmaking that comes at the discretion of
their foundation’s leadership. More than half said they would make different decisions
than their foundation leadership if they were in charge as sole decision makers.
Structure
• The grantmaking process is unique at each foundation, and all participants agreed that
implicit racial bias can affect their decision making.
• All individuals shared several ideas on how they would change their processes if it were
up to them to decide.
• A majority of participants overestimated their foundation’s grantmaking to communities
of color. Only one participant accurately estimated these grants. Reactions varied, with
some surprised and others questioning the methodology.
Context
• Philanthropic professionals feel responsible within their roles at private foundations to
the community, although who constitutes that community varies slightly.
• Participants described their foundation’s reputation with themes of flexibility and
forward-thinking on race and diversity issues, noting internal culture and power
dynamics.

75
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
Americans forego an estimated $50 billion in tax revenue every year through the use of
charitable deductions (Callahan, 2017). “As a result of the accelerated change and global
visibility of philanthropic practices, their sources for legitimacy, financial accountability,
political influence and (expectations for) public benefit outcomes have become, more than ever
before, under the spotlight of public opinion” (von Schnurbein et al., 2021, p. 186). The
philanthropic sector has ample financial resources, relative freedom, and the power to influence
society. Foundations’ grantmaking is at the discretion of what is a majority White staff and
leadership (Council on Foundations, 2023). As a result of the social and racial reckoning of
2020, more private foundations made social justice and racial equity an explicit focus of their
grantmaking. Understanding and mitigating implicit racial bias, something that the majority of
Americans hold against people of color, is necessary to ensure the equitable distribution of
philanthropic dollars (Greenwald et al., 2009; Scott, 2017, p. 24).
The study explored the following research question: To what extent, and in what ways,
do grantmaking professionals at private foundations experience implicit bias in their
grantmaking?
The methodology I used involved a three-part quantitative phase and a qualitative phase
of one-on-one interviews. In Part 1 of the quantitative phase, individuals participated in an online
survey through Qualtrics designed to gather basic demographic data and understand their
perceptions of how biases may impact their grantmaking decisions, if at all. Once they completed
the survey, they moved on to Part 2 of the quantitative phase and were prompted to take the IAT
on race and share their results with me via email. Once I received a copy of their IAT results, I
began Part 3 of the quantitative phase, which was an analysis of their grantmaking history to

76
better understand what communities their grantmaking supported. After that, I conducted the
final qualitative phase, in which I interviewed philanthropic professionals one-on-one via Zoom.
These interviews were semi-structured and lasted approximately an hour.
Summary
Despite best intentions, many individuals have implicit racial bias because of how they
have been socialized. The degree to which these biases present themselves varies according to
each person and the roles they occupy in society. The interviewees are deeply committed to their
private foundations’ missions, visions, and values of racial equity and/or social justice. They
displayed varying levels of bias, regardless of their own racial identity. Additionally, this study
found that not all interviewees accurately predicted their bias as it relates to the IAT. While half
of them demonstrated a bias against European Americans or White people to varying degrees,
two exhibited no bias, and three showed a bias against African Americans or Black people.
However, they all agreed that there is bias in the structures in which they operate and manifest as
policies and procedures in their grantmaking processes.
The literature review demonstrated that there is an urgent call for philanthropy to address
issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion and prioritize communities of color in grantmaking.
However, without accountability and transparency, it is unclear if foundations are meeting the
urgency of the moment in alignment with their missions, visions, and values of social equity and
racial justice.
Regarding accountability, this study indicates that some foundations track data on the
communities their philanthropic dollars support, but not everyone at those foundations is aware
of those specifics or part of those conversations. Instead, many philanthropic professionals point
to nonprofit organizations led by individuals who identify as BIPOC, perhaps with an

77
assumption that the communities served reflect that leaders’ race. Additionally, only three
foundations are actively sharing this data, either on communities served or BIPOC leadership,
explicitly on their websites. The grantmaking analysis I conducted revealed that most
participants overestimate their grantmaking to communities of color.
Regarding transparency, the research uncovered what some describe as a common
philanthropic practice of grantmaking that runs concurrently with its explicit policies and
procedures. This shadow side of grantmaking is not always aligned with explicit foundation
goals of social justice and racial equity and is often at the discretion of philanthropic leaders or
through a nonprofit’s savviness and preexisting relationships.
While the interviewees may not personally hold implicit racial bias against communities
of color, they all agreed that there is bias in their foundations’ policies and procedures. This is
especially true in the absence of accountability for the grantmaking and transparency in their
processes. However, there is hope for the future of philanthropic practice to better align with its
espoused values of social justice and racial equity. This study’s results indicate that people are
thinking about bias and actively looking to mitigate their personal biases. The interviewees
recognize where implicit biases exist and have brainstormed many potential solutions to reduce
the effects of bias in their grantmaking processes. Additionally, the participants felt a sense of
responsibility to support their communities, although their definitions of who constitutes that
community vary slightly. Finally, many of the interviewees are proud to have what they believe
is a positive reputation among the nonprofit sector. Therefore, there are many implications for
how philanthropy can move forward and opportunities for further research to further unpack
implicit racial bias in grantmaking.

78
Quantitative Results and Qualitative Findings
In philanthropy, biases can influence access to and allocation of funding despite the best
intentions of philanthropic professionals. The impact of an individual’s bias depends on the roles
that they occupy in society (Marks, 2019). The interviewees are deeply committed to their
private foundations’ missions, visions, and values. Eight of them identified their interests in
pursuing what some called “mission-driven work” or “values-aligned work” as the primary
reasons for joining the philanthropic sector. One shared,
I think some foundations have really icky cultures, but you know this one doesn’t. So, I
sort of really believed, not just in the mission, but in the way that the foundation does its
work, and that was also really appealing to me.
Another explained, “I wanted to do something that involved helping people, uplifting the
community that I lived in.”
Despite the best of intentions, many individuals still have implicit racial bias. The
interviewees’ IAT results revealed that five of them had a bias against European Americans or
White people in varying degrees, two exhibited no bias, and three showed a bias against African
Americans or Black people. This is contrary to national data gathered through Project Implicit,
which indicated that 75% of the nearly four million people who took the test on race held an
“automatic White preference” (Scott, 2017, p. 24). The interviewees displayed varying levels of
bias, regardless of their own racial identity. It is also important to know that “showing a
preference does not mean that you are prejudiced or will discriminate, but it does suggest that
you have stored certain associations between groups and traits in memory” (Marks, 2019, p. 74).
Additionally, this study’s results showed that not all interviewees accurately predicted their bias
as it relates to the IAT. As powell (2015) noted, even small biases may have big ramifications on

79
decisions about funding and, thus, outcomes for society more broadly and therefore encouraged
philanthropy to join the emerging conversation around self-discovery.
All interviewees agreed that there is bias in the systems in which they operate and appear
as policies and procedures in their grantmaking process. This is also reflected in the literature,
such as The State of Change: An Analysis of Women and People of Color in the Philanthropic
Sector, which notes that the various processes within philanthropy deserve further examination
to ensure they are free from bias (Mills, 2017). Similarly, in Power Moves – Your Essential
Philanthropy Assessment Guide for Equity and Justice, the authors encourage a reflection on
unconscious bias and how it may impact decision making (Ranghelli et al., 2018).
Interviewees identified various areas of their grantmaking processes where implicit racial
bias can manifest, including the design of the application, invitation to apply, LOI, full
proposal/application, site visit/phone call/Zoom meeting, reporting requirements, and evaluation.
Of all these, the invitation to apply is one that all 10 interviewees agreed has the potential for
implicit bias to affect decision making. In fact, many of them described the relational nature of
their grantmaking in which they receive referrals from their foundation leadership, other funders,
or their current grantees. Some funders recognized this, with one individual who said,
Implicit bias probably played a huge role when the foundation really mostly functioned
without transparent processes and (when) decision making it was mostly relational.
Similarly, another interviewee shared,
Invitation [only] means that we’re inviting people we know, so it’s only people who’ve
gotten in the door already are being invited to apply and to get in the door. You have to
already be in the network or be well-connected.

80
Another described how leadership shows up in many ways but that we may be biased
toward individuals who are more like us,
Somebody like me, like another White woman who’s well educated, I might feel a bond
with her, and that in ways that I might not even be totally aware of. … For me, it’s more
work and so I think that’s why we’ve tried to design (a process). It’s not a perfect process
but I think we’ve tried to design a process where we’re asking ourselves questions along
the way, but it’s super easy for me to see all the ways … expectations about organization
and what it means to have a well-run organization, (and how that) favors, organizations
that already have capacity and have access to resources. And I think that’s influenced by
racial bias.
As Daniel (2019) explained in the New York Times, “implicit bias affects which
prospective grantees they deem risky, credible, trustworthy or innovative, and gives a great
advantage to leaders and nonprofits that conform to their cultural norms” (para. 16).
Additionally, all interviewees acknowledged that their foundations had some written
component available exclusively in English as part of their grantmaking processes. There is the
potential for implicit racial bias in the process, which may prioritize those who write English
well over others who may have a different primary language. One individual shared that their
foundation is currently revising its written application to be more streamlined and thinking about
“how people review them such that it’s not about writing a good proposal—it’s about what’s the
work that’s actually happening.” One respondent even acknowledged, “Writing isn’t my strong
suit, and I know not everybody is a writer.” To address some of the bias inherent in an Englishonly process, three foundations are currently in conversations about how to offer components of
its applications in languages other than English. Daniel (2019) acknowledged this emphasis on

81
the written word, pointing to implicit bias that can be woven into structural components of
grantmaking that give preference to those who can articulate their work in “glossy proposals”
over those with “less slick proposals” (p. 3).
While the interviewees may not overwhelmingly possess biases against people of color,
bias can be expressed and manifested in the policies, procedures, and processes in which they
engage. The literature review noted that scholars have called on philanthropy to examine its
internal structures, including its priorities, policies, application processes, and evaluation
practices, to understand whether it is perpetuating racial inequity within its systems (Daniel,
2019; Davis, 2020; Dorsey, Bradach, & Peter, 2020b; Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014;
Lamarche, 2009; powell, 2015; Quiroz-Martin et al., 2007; Redwood & King, 2014; K. Reich,
2020). More directly, an article in The Foundation Review asserted that philanthropy’s primary
challenge to addressing racial equity is rooted in its structural elements that prioritize White
dominance and White privilege and challenged philanthropy to examine its operations (GulatiPartee & Potapchuk, 2014). The interviewees all agreed that there was bias rooted in some of the
structural elements of their grantmaking process. This sentiment is echoed in the literature, as
Dean-Coffey (2018) noted that “foundations are realizing that to address equity they must
address race and racism within their institutions and in their external actions and decisions” (p.
527).
While the conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion in philanthropy was
spurred in the wake of the proposed Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act in 2007, the
social and racial reckoning that emerged after the murder of George Floyd by police in 2020
prompted many foundations to increase their efforts to support racial equity in grantmaking.
Candid’s (2024b) review of grantmaking found that between 2020 and 2023, grantmaking for

82
racial equity “increased dramatically” with nearly 80,000 grants valued at $16.8 billion (para. 4).
In those intervening years, many nonprofit and foundation leaders, as well as academics, called
on philanthropy to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion through commissioned
reports, articles in leading peer-reviewed journals and national newspapers, as well as two
popular books, one of which was a New York Times bestseller. However, whether foundations
are meeting the urgency of the moment in alignment with their mission, vision, and values
remains unclear as they continue to grapple with issues of accountability and transparency.
There is also an inherent tension between the relative freedom and flexibility that allows
philanthropy to respond to issues as they emerge and a desire for more accountability and
transparency in its work.
Accountability
Tracking Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts
To answer this call for diversity, equity, and inclusion, some foundations have begun
tracking what communities their philanthropic dollars support. Four interviewees shared that
their foundations track this data, and two shared that they found the data helpful in their
decision-making process. Three others shared that their foundations are currently tracking this
demographic data, but the analysis piece is a work in progress, and they are not part of those
conversations. Two individuals responded that their foundations do not track this data. Finally,
one person was unsure if this was being tracked internally but did not think it was happening.
Based on this response, six of the 10 respondents do not currently have access to information
about the communities their grantmaking dollars are supporting beyond their assumptions about
the communities their nonprofit grantees support.

83
Overestimating Grantmaking to Communities of Color
The lack of tracking demographic data may be problematic because the survey results
showed that seven respondents overestimated their grantmaking to communities of color. My
grantmaking analysis compared each foundation’s most recent years’ grants and the zip codes of
all its grantees’ headquarters to 2020 census data on race organized by ZCTAs. The range of
overestimation was as low as 2% and as high as 21%. In the absence of information regarding
the communities they serve, these philanthropic professionals gave themselves more credit for
reaching their goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion than was deserved. When we discussed
the results, only three of the interviewees were surprised with the results.
Emphasis on BIPOC Leadership
Seven individuals shared that their foundations prioritize nonprofits led by people of
color, either as their executive leaders or boards of directors. They offered this in response to the
interview question, “With so many potential organizations, how do you decide which nonprofits
to support?” Perhaps the assumption is that the communities served reflect that of nonprofit
leaders’ race. One explained,
We really center racial justice. This is our North Star. I think the events of George Floyd
and COVID has really highlighted the pervasiveness of racism in our country. So, I think
that we have been really critical and in making BIPOC-led organizations a priority
because we see the data that those BIPOC-led organizations receive less funding than
their White counterparts.
Similarly, one individual shared,
I really try to understand who are the strong leaders in a community who can reach
community residents. Who’s engaging folks? Who’s got vision and ideas? Who’s not

84
being funded that should be funded? … And I do look at who are the BIPOC leaders
because those are the leaders that we know are very underfunded, and we need to ensure
that BIPOC voices are at the table.
Data supports this claim, with Candid’s 2024 report, The State of Diversity in the U.S. Nonprofit
Sector, that found “White male CEO representation increases with organization size, while
BIPOC female CEO representation decreases” (Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 6). It also found that
“White male CEOs are most likely to lead nonprofits with the most financial resources” and
“CEOs who are Black, are BIPOC women, or have a disability are more likely to lead
organizations with the fewest financial resources” (Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 6). Additionally, it
found that
majority BIPOC-led organizations have fewer financial resources. Median revenue for
majority White-led organizations is 54% higher than it is for majority BIPOC-led ones. In
terms of total revenue in the sector, majority White-led organizations control about 5.5
times as much sector-wide revenue as majority BIPOC-led organizations do (Clerkin et
al., 2024, p. 8).
Some philanthropic professionals try to balance representation and the nonprofits’ work,
with one interviewee sharing,
The other thing we’re talking about internally is this balance between representation and
who’s doing the work and identity of the leadership is really important, but it shouldn’t
be the only thing that we look at because we’re also looking for organizations to do
things in the community to really be able to drive change.
Another explained,

85
As we review applications, this is something that we informally do, but we’re hoping to
formalize it to look at not just the leadership representation but the leadership, culture,
and advancement opportunities for people of color within the organization and then
whether their mission and work is clearly rooted in communities of color.
The leadership profile, however, is not always a dealbreaker for funding, with one
individual explaining,
The diversity of the board, that’s big for us, the DEI information on their board and the
executive team – Are they a reflection of the communities they’re serving? And if
they’re not, why not? Or what are they doing to try to change that?
The 2020 report from Echoing Green and Bridgespan Group, Racial Equity and
Philanthropy – Disparities in Funding for Leaders of Color Leave Impact on the Table, noted
that two major factors hold philanthropy back from advancing social change, and they are both
related to race: philanthropy must understand the role that race plays both in the challenges they
are trying to solve and how it affects which leaders and solutions they chose to invest in (Dorsey,
Bradach, & Peter, 2020a). An article that later appeared in the Stanford Social Innovation Review
as a result of the report noted that a “realization is beginning to take hold that broad change
cannot happen without understanding the role that race and racism play” (Dorsey, Kim, et al.,
2020c, p. 2).
Candid addressed this interest in BIPOC leadership when it began updating the
demographic sections of its profiles in 2019 and launched Demographics via Candid in 2023.
Demographics via Candid is “an initiative that empowers nonprofits to share their demographic
data one time, on their Candid profile, where it can be accessed and reused by all” (Clerkin et al.,
2024, p. 4). While this tool is free and available to foundations, the extent to which this data is

86
tracked formally or informally is unclear. Candid CEO Ann Mei Chang noted in the report, The
State of Diversity in the U.S. Nonprofit Sector, that providing this data for free allows
foundations “to drill down on the demographics landscape of their own grantees, establishing a
baseline to measure progress on stated goals and to identify gaps” (Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 4).
Measuring Mission, Vision, and Values
Whether foundations track this data formally or informally is important because, as the
research has indicated, individuals can potentially overestimate the extent of their giving to
communities of color. The importance of data, such as that provided by Candid,
highlights another important step toward increasing equity and inclusion – measurement
and accountability. It is difficult to determine the extent to which resources and power are
distributed fairly without enough data. It is also difficult to determine whether progress is
happening without being able to measure it. This is why we believe that collecting and
tracking demographic information is critical to supporting equity in the nonprofit sector
(Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 9).
Beyond internally tracking this information, a scan of each foundation’s website showed that
only three provide publicly available, easily accessible data on the racial profile of the nonprofit
leaders or communities they support. This lack of accountability prevents determining the extent
to which private foundations are meeting their espoused values of social justice and racial equity
in their grantmaking. Callahan (2017) explained that “we need to ask much harder questions
about the accountability of philanthropy, which operates outside of familiar checks and
balances” (p. 10). Similarly, von Schnurbein et al. (2021) noted that “as a result of the
accelerated change and global visibility of philanthropic practices, their sources for legitimacy,

87
financial accountability, political influence and (expectations for) public benefit outcomes have
become, more than ever before, under the spotlight of public opinion” (p. 186).
Strategies to Mitigate Bias
This focus by the public also reflects what the literature has noted. In The Foundation
Review, Redwood and King (2014) identified racial equity across grantmaking as both a “goal
and a process” (p. 1). The interviewees also discussed the idea that this is something to strive for
as well as something that needs to be actualized in a meaningful way. In another article in The
Foundation Review, Bezahler (2014) documented one foundation’s journey, and the author
recommended several strategies to better support communities of color, including diversifying
foundation leadership, avoiding tokenism, and analyzing data with an explicit focus on inclusion.
Eight philanthropic professionals pointed to rubrics and strategies that help ensure alignment
with their mission, vision, or values around social justice and racial equity. One interviewee
explained,
This is where a combination of having a strategy in place helps kind of narrow down
[who receives funding], and then we primarily focus on organizations that are founded
and/or led by people that are directly or indirectly impacted by the issues that they’re
seeking to solve. And that comes from a basic value or belief that those closest to the
problem are also closest to the solution.
Transparency
Bias at the Beginning
During the interviews, I asked the participants to describe their grantmaking processes.
Half of their foundations were invitation-only and the other half defined themselves as
responsive grantmakers that have more open processes for applying for a grant. For those that are

88
invitation-only, one interviewee shared, “It means that we’re inviting people we know so it’s
only people who’ve gotten in the door already are being invited to apply. You have to already be
in the network or be well connected.”
Another individual described their process as
Formally, we are invitation only, but because we don’t really advertise what we’re doing
or when we’re moving grants forward, … but in terms of accessibility, if you want to
learn about our program or be in touch, my email address is public. … I’m sure
externally it looks more maybe standoffish than we really are.
They described an evolution at their foundation with the goal to be more explicit in their work,
“without purposefully meaning to, we’ve been pretty opaque in how we do things, and I’m
definitely excited to have us be more transparent and accessible.” Many have scrutinized the
freedom that exists within philanthropy and have called on private foundations to increase
transparency and develop accountability standards (Atkins & Aguilar, 2012; Callahan, 2017;
Giridharadas, 2019; Lamarche, 2009; R. Reich, 2018; Villanueva, 2018). R. Reich (2018)
explained that “wealthy people are free to set up foundations, without constituents, consumers,
and competitors, for whatever purpose they please, with whatever money they wish, and to
continue to hew to this purpose, regardless of the outcome of the foundation’s grantmaking” (p.
145). He also noted that “apart from a legal requirement that foundations pay out five percent of
their assets every year and file an annual tax form with some basic data, foundations can, and
frequently do, act secretly” (R. Reich, 2018, p. 146).
In some situations, participants explained that while they have an open-door policy, they
are looking to “right-size” expectations about their strategies so that organizations do not apply
unless it is likely they will receive funding. One individual discussed their responsive

89
grantmaking status: “I think that’s a little deceiving because it’s only 10% of those that submit an
LOI get invited to apply.” Another explained, “We almost never fund from our open LOI
process, which is one of the problems we’re trying to address with clear guidelines and clear
program descriptions.” R. Reich (2018) explained that “some foundations—especially the largest
and most professionalized—do operate transparently” but that it is also “a function of the
idiosyncratic preference of a particular foundation, not a legal requirement or professional norm”
(p. 146).
Shadow Systems of Grantmaking
Each foundation’s website also describes its grantmaking process, but eight interviewees
described situations that are hidden and run concurrently with the explicit policies and
procedures described on their websites. These processes seem to be tied to who foundation
leaders know or how savvy a nonprofit’s leader may be. These shadow forms of grantmaking
were often accompanied by frustration and/or regret on behalf of the interviewees because it
often did not align with explicit strategies. EPIP, a professional association dedicated to
supporting early and mid-career philanthropic professionals, published Dissonance and
Disconnects in 2018, a report that offered perspectives on diversity, with its focus specifically on
the entry and mid-level foundation staff. Many of the interviewees identified as mid-level staff
with the titles often of program officer, like many of the participants in the Dissonance and
Disconnects report. The data gathered in the report suggests “a sobering disconnect between
philanthropy’s aspirations and its realities with respect to diversity, equity, inclusion, and crosslevel organizational leadership” (Tompkins et al., 2018, p. 17).
In some situations, individuals described influence from executive leaders or their boards
of directors to make certain grants. One shared, “It was a lot of like, ‘The executive is my

90
friend.’” Another’s role at their foundation involved working with their CEO and board of
directors on their discretionary grantmaking; they described that the grants made through that
process:
[That] did not sit well with me… So, it was hard sometimes, again, because our board has
a discretionary grantmaking. You know, they recommend them pretty much if they fit our
mission, which is pretty broad. … I wish I didn’t have to because I’m not sure they’re
aligned.
In The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age, Callahan (2017)
argued that there is a shift in the next generation of donors, which may be reflected in the data
gathered for this study:
Next-generation philanthropists are often drawn to a more rigorous approach to giving.
They’re less interested in so-called relationship giving, whereby donations flow to alma
maters, community institutions, and the causes championed by friends… next-generation
funders are often thinking about impact and breakthroughs (p. 215).
Another interviewee explained,
Well, there are some grants that we have made, continuations of all the relationships from
my predecessor, and also from the president of the foundation that seem to have been
made primarily because they were friends and allies [and that] perhaps their work wasn’t
evaluated with the same strict criteria.
One participant spoke about nonprofit leaders who were friends with the foundation’s
CEO or a foundation board member who also sits on a nonprofit board:
I’ve had those moments in the last few years, not a lot yet, but I’m coming to learn that
that’s something that happens. And some of my colleagues have told me, “You know,

91
I’ve been here for numerous years already,’ kind of like in senior roles, and they’re like,
“I know you can feel frustrated, and I know what it feels like, they tell me, but it’s just
part of it.
This statement illustrates R. Reich’s (2018) claim that “big philanthropy is often an
unaccountable, non-transparent, donor-directed, and perpetual exercise of power” (p. 7).
In other situations, individuals shared that savvy nonprofit leaders may know how to
navigate a complex request or be more willing to reach out with questions. One shared,
Lots of people don’t know that they can make special appeals to foundations. They don’t
know that they can call the CEO or call the program officer and say, can you make this
really big grant out of cycle. … And you know, like all the leadership was White, and I
think that if I was the lead program person on it, and I think if my radar was a little bit
more developed, I would have asked some more questions like, should we really be doing
this? If there was a Black-led organization that came, and you know, made the same case
would we make the same investment in them? … In some subtle ways, racial bias really
played into our decision to advantage a pretty well-connected organization to make a
special grant. And I look back, and I wish we had not done so.
This sentiment aligns with Gulati-Partee and Potapchuk’s (2014) article in The
Foundation Review, in which the authors argued that foundations working to disrupt racial
inequity must also consider the often-overlooked concept of White privilege and its effects
within and beyond its organizations. One interviewee shared,
Orgs will just email me and say, “I am doing this. Can we set up a call?” So, I do feel,
like, really conflicted with so many ways of being reached to because then you have
those personalities that follow the rules that go through the LOI, and then you have others

92
that are, like, let me just go talk to them. … I also feel that creates some sense of it’s just
not equitable.
The results indicate that foundation leadership, both executives and boards of directors,
operate a shadow system of grantmaking that relies on existing relationships and gives
preference to certain leaders over others. The leadership of philanthropy clearly identifies as
White, with 15% of foundation CEOs and 33% of full-time staff identifying as people of color
(Council on Foundations, 2023).
Additionally, a recent report by Candid noted that while the nonprofit “sector is racially
diverse, senior leadership is not” (Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 13). In fact, “the U.S. nonprofit sector
becomes less diverse at higher levels of leadership” (Clerkin et al., 2024, p. 5). Additionally,
“White male CEOs are most likely to lead nonprofits with the most financial resources” (Clerkin
et al., 2024, p. 6). The shadow system of grantmaking that exists between White leadership of
philanthropy and White leadership of nonprofits, as described by the interviewees, indicates that
implicit racial bias may be present in some grantmaking decisions. Some have pointed to the
importance of diversity of decision-making staff as a necessary component of reducing explicit
racial bias within philanthropy (Lamarche, 2009; Villanueva, 2018). Lamarche (2009) claimed
that “who is at the table has a great deal to do with how the pie is divided” and argued that
“virtually all foundations… need to do much better in this respect” (p. 21). Another key finding
of the EPIP Dissonance and Disconnects report is that respondents in the national survey
“generally rated their institutions low with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion, with a
sizable gap between institutions’ goals and institutional realities” (Tompkins et al., 2018, p. 3).

93
Implications for Practice
Many implications for practice emerged from this study. As mentioned in the literature
review, Aspen Institute researcher Keith Lawrence (2002) encouraged philanthropy to use its
power to promote new ways of thinking around race and White privilege and to create new
frameworks to guide community practice. Additionally, he called on philanthropic researchers to
act as “stimulus for what might ultimately amount to a much-needed change in the communitybuilding culture” of philanthropy (Lawrence, 2002, p. 53). The author pointed out that
“philanthropic institutions exert great influence over the intellectual frameworks guiding
community practices” and have helped normalize concepts like “human and social capital,”
“social networks,” and “soft skills,” among others (Lawrence, 2002, p. 50). With that in mind,
this study’s results indicate that the participants were thinking about bias and are interested in
solutions to deter its interference in their grantmaking. They already have creative strategies in
mind and are motivated by a responsibility to their communities. The opportunity to account for
their efforts in a transparent way would only serve to strengthen their foundation’s reputation as
it strives to address social justice and racial equity in grantmaking.
This study found that while the interviewees may not overwhelmingly have a bias against
communities of color, they exist within a society that does. Additionally, the data I gathered
shows that people recognize where bias can exist in their policies and procedures and have
already considered solutions to mitigate against bias, although the extent to which they can
change these structures is unclear. This is hopeful, however, because “the potential impact of
implicit bias on behavior can be overridden by conscious effort” (Marks, 2019, p. 42).
Philanthropic professionals had several suggestions, including the elimination of written

94
applications or, at the very least, making them available in languages other than English and
available in different ways for those who may have other accessibility challenges.
Additionally, philanthropic professionals suggested that the creation of rubrics and
strategies upon which they could benchmark and track their efforts would be helpful in their
efforts to address bias. One individual shared,
I think the purpose of the rubric is to make us more aware and to be really asking
ourselves questions about the extent to which race is centered and also increasingly, how
are people who are most directly impacted by these systems? What role do they play in
leading the organization, making decisions?
Another interviewee explained,
I think we could be more open in terms of how we’re developing our strategy and how
we’re including our partners in the development of our strategies and also being less rigid
to what our strategies are and more responsive.
This suggestion was supported by the literature that explained that philanthropy has the
opportunity and subsequent responsibility to “interrogate assumptions, experiment with
strategies, intentionally learn and share, and push thinking and practice” (Dean-Coffey, 2018, p.
535). Finally, the interviewees suggested participatory grantmaking and inclusive boards as a
strategy to ensure that diverse community voice is present in the decision-making process. One
individual shared, “I think exploring ways to incorporate some aspects of participatory
grantmaking or advising into our work, eventually, would be great.” Lamarche (2017, as cited in
Villanueva, 2018),
The most fundamental thing that philanthropies can do is democratize themselves so that
the decision making is made by people most affected. A more established way of doing

95
that, which still people don’t do enough, is to have boards that are really reflecting
communities. (p. 104).
To mitigate implicit racial bias, implementing some of these efforts could make their
work more equitable. That means they will need to commit to a sustained unlearning of the way
people are socialized and engage in these efforts in a rigorous, sustained way. Daniel (2019)
argued that the future of social change is at stake, with diversity among philanthropic
investments as the risk capital necessary to save democracy and the planet.
Beyond their suggestions on strategies to eliminate implicit racial bias in grantmaking,
the results suggested that philanthropic professionals are driven by a responsibility to support the
community. Although they differ on exactly what constitutes the community, either the
nonprofits or the individuals served by the nonprofits, their response demonstrates a commitment
to thinking about the broader impact of their work. One interviewee shared very directly,
All the communities I serve. I wouldn’t do this. It’s too much bullshit. I wouldn’t do this
if it wasn’t for the passion I have for my communities and thinking of how much they’ve
gone through, and when I say my communities, I mean BIPOC communities, Black,
brown, Indigenous communities, Asian communities.
Another participant explained their responsibility to “specifically, the community
members. The BIPOC community members who are not at the table.” With this in mind, they
may be willing to engage with a variety of frameworks, resources, and tools that can help them
recognize bias and address barriers to an equitable distribution of grantmaking dollars to
communities of color. The results also indicate that philanthropic professionals believe that their
foundations have positive professional reputations. Thus, increasing their accountability and
transparency on social justice and racial equity efforts may only enhance their reputations. That

96
means they will need to go beyond tracking their grantmaking communities and BIPOC
leadership internally and make that data accessible to a broader audience.
Recommendations for Research
My first recommendation for future research addresses a particular finding in this study.
The results revealed that all interviewees believe that bias exists in the policies and procedures at
their foundation. A further investigation of how implicit racial bias can appear in foundations’
processes is warranted.
My second recommendation for future research addresses a limitation in this study. The
sample, while representative in many ways of the broader philanthropic sector, is still
proportionally small. A further investigation that involves more voices will likely yield more
insights into the extent of implicit racial bias in philanthropy.
My third recommendation for future research addresses an evolving legal situation that
has implications for foundations. The case, American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund,
will test whether race-based decision making in philanthropy constitutes racial discrimination.
For a relatively risk-averse field, understanding how this court case impacts decision making will
provide insight into the future use of demographic data and grantmaking to communities of
color.
Conclusion
Philanthropy is in a unique position, free from the bureaucracy of the public sector and
the profitability pressures of the private sector. Many believe that philanthropy is motivated by
altruism and a desire for broad social benefit. In the wake of the social and racial unrest of 2020,
philanthropy has responded to an urgent call to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion
with its grantmaking. While philanthropy has traditionally taken a colorblind approach to its

97
work, more recently, foundations have sought to address issues of inequity more explicitly. If
private philanthropy wants to continue to uphold its positive reputation, a belief held by both
philanthropic professionals and society more broadly, it needs to increase accountability and
transparency on issues of social justice and racial equity to ensure it is meeting its espoused
missions, visions, and values to address diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Unfortunately, little emphasis has been placed on addressing how implicit racial bias can
influence decision making and process design in philanthropy. That bias may uphold and
perpetuate values that diverge with individuals’ hopes to achieve social equity and racial justice
through grantmaking. Fortunately, philanthropic professionals are motivated by a responsibility
to serve the community, particularly the BIPOC community, and have begun identifying
solutions to mitigate bias. They recognize when bias exists within its foundation’s policies and
procedures and have identified potential strategies to mitigate that racial bias, including
eliminating written applications or at least making them more accessible for those who do not
read and write in English or may have disabilities that make these processes more challenging;
creating rubrics and strategies upon which foundations can benchmark and track their efforts
would address blind spots of bias; and participatory grantmaking and/or more inclusive boards of
directors as a strategy to ensure diverse, community voice is present in the decision-making
process.
Eliminating bias takes a sustained unlearning of the way we have been socialized.
Because the vast majority of individuals have bias, we must confront assumptions, stereotypes,
and beliefs that we have about people of other races and that may make us uncomfortable. As we
engage in that process, philanthropy needs the tools to hold ourselves accountable to our

98
community. Without transparency, there is no way of truly knowing the impact on the
communities we seek to support. Unfortunately, good intentions are not enough.

99
REFERENCES
Aguilar, O., Duenas, T., Flores, B., Godinez, L., Joy, H., & Zavala, I. (2005). Fairness in
philanthropy part I: Foundation giving to minority-led nonprofits. Greenlining Institute.
Anheier, H. K., & Hammack, D. C. (Eds.). (2010). American foundations: Roles and
contributions. Brookings Institution Press.
Atkins, A., & Aguilar, O. (2012). A promise to diverse communities: Summary of the
Foundation Coalition’s efforts. Greenlining Institute. http://greenlining.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/PDCreport.pdf
Bearman, J., Ramos, H. A., & Pond, A. N. S. (2010). Moving diversity up the agenda: Lessons
and next steps from the diversity in philanthropy project. The Foundation Review, 2(2),
85–99. https://doi.org/10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-10-00005
Bezahler, L. (2014). Naming race: one foundation’s path to a strategy of structural inclusion and
self-determination. The Foundation Review, 6(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-
5660.1192
Bhati, A. (2021). Does implicit color bias reduce giving? Learnings from fundraising survey
using Implicit Association Test (IAT). Voluntas, 32(2), 340–350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00277-8
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Breeze, B. (2021). Defence of philanthropy. Agenda Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1wgvb5v
Bremner, R. H. (1996). Giving: charity and philanthropy in history (1st pbk. ed.). Transaction
Publishers.
California Black Freedom Fund. (2024, May 22). California Black Freedom Fund launches new
initiative to safeguard racial justice organizations from baseless legal attacks. PR Newswire.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-black-freedom-fund-launches-newinitiative-to-safeguard-racial-justice-organizations-from-baseless-legal-attacks302153361.html
Callahan, D. (2017). The givers: Wealth, power, and philanthropy in a new gilded age. Vintage.
Candid. (2002). Highlights of the Foundation Center’s foundation staffing.
https://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/02sthlts.pdf
Candid. (2020, April). Key facts on U.S. nonprofits and foundations. https://Www.Issuelab.Org.
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/36381/36381.pdf

100
Candid. (2024a). Foundation Directory. https://fconline.foundationcenter.org/fdosearch/member-index/
Candid. (2024b). Funding for racial equity. https://candid.org/explore-issues/racial-equity
Candid. (2024c). Guidestar. https://www.guidestar.org
Candid. (2024d). Knowledge base: What is a foundation?
https://learning.candid.org/resources/knowledge-base/what-is-a-foundation/
CHANGE Philanthropy. (2023). About. https://changephilanthropy.org/about/
Clerkin, C., Diomande, M., & Koob, A. (2024). The state of diversity in the U.S. nonprofit
sector. Candid. https://doi.org/10.15868/socialsector.43685
Colinvaux, R. (2024). How the fearless fund ruling distorts charity, history — and law.
Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/how-the-fearless-fundruling-distorts-charity-history-and-law?sra=true
Council on Foundations. (2023). 2023 Grantmaker salary and benefits report: Key findings.
https://cof.org/content/2023-grantmaker-salary-and-benefits-report-key-findings
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Cunningham, G. L., Avner, M. L., & Justilien, R. (2014). The urgency of now: Foundations’ role
in ending racial inequity. The Foundation Review, 6(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-
5660.1191
D5. (2011). State of the work: Mapping the landscape and D5’s path forward on diversity,
equity, and inclusion in philanthropy. http://www.d5coalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/State_of_the_Work_2011_Report.pdf
D5. (2012). State of the work: The road to greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in
philanthropy. http://www.d5coalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/D5_State_of_the_Work_2012.pdf
D5. (2013). State of the work: Inspiration & Ideas for Advancing Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
in Philanthropy. http://www.d5coalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/D5_State_of_the_Work_2013.pdf
D5. (2014). State of the work: Tackling the tough challenges to advancing diversity, equity, and
inclusion. http://www.d5coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/State-of-the-Work2014-FINAL.pdf
D5. (2016). State of the work: Stories from the Movement to Advance Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion. http://www.d5coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D5-SOTW-2016-
Final-web-pages.pdf

101
Daniel, V. (2019, November 19). Philanthropists bench women of color, the M.V.P.s of social
change. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/opinion/philanthropyblack-women.html
Daniels, A. (2020, October 13). Foundations show little progress in making their staff more
Diverse. Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/foundationsshow-little-progress-in-making-their-staff-more-diverse
Daniels, A. (2023). What Americans don’t know about nonprofits: Two stunners: Less than half
could name a philanthropist, and very few think they’ve benefited from a nonprofit. The
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 35(7), 28+.
Daniels, A. (2024, June 26). Will giving grants based on race survive the Fearless Fund Case?
The Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/will-giving-grantsbased-on-race-survive-the-fearless-fund-case
Davis, M. (2020, July 23). Risks for the future we want. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/risks_for_the_future_we_want
Dean-Coffey, J. (2018). What’s race got to do with it? Equity and philanthropic evaluation
practice. The American Journal of Evaluation, 39(4), 527–542.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018778533
Dorsey, C., Bradach, J., & Peter, K. (2020a). Racial equity and philanthropy.
https://www.bridgespan.org/bridgespan/Images/articles/racial-equity-andphilanthropy/racial-equity-and-philanthropy.pdf
Dorsey, C., Bradach, J., & Peter, K. (2020b). The racial funding gap can’t continue in the
pandemic. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/theracial-funding-gap-cant-continue-in-the-pandemic
Dorsey, C., Kim, P., Daniels, C., Sakaue, L., & Savage, B. (2020, May 4). Overcoming the racial
bias in philanthropic funding. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/overcoming_the_racial_bias_in_philanthropic_funding
Feagin, J. R. (2013). The White racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-framing.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076828
Ford Foundation. (2023). Diversity, equity, and inclusion: Creating a culture of excellence.
https://www.fordfoundation.org/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/
Foundation Source. (2019). What is a private foundation? Retrieved May 2, 2019, from
https://www.foundationsource.com/learn-about-foundations/what-is-a-privatefoundation/
Foundation Source. (2022). 2022 report on private philanthropy.
https://20294318.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/20294318/ResourceHub/PDFs/FS-2022-Report-on-Private-FINAL_DOWNLOAD.pdf

102
Freund, G. (1996). Narcissism and philanthropy: Ideas and talent denied. Viking.
Frumkin, P. (1998). The long recoil from regulation: Private philanthropic foundations and the
Tax Reform Act of 1969. American Review of Public Administration, 28(3), 266–286.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409802800303
Gallup. (2023, July 12). Historically low faith in U.S. institutions continues.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/508169/historically-low-faith-institutions-continues.aspx
Giridharadas, A. (2019). Winners take all: The elite charade of changing the world. Vintage.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and
using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575
Gulati-Partee, G., & Potapchuk, M. (2014). Paying attention to White culture and privilege: A
missing link to advancing racial equity. The Foundation Review, 6(1), 4.
https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1189
Independent Sector. (2021). Trust in civil society: Understanding the factors driving trust in
nonprofits and philanthropy. https://independentsector.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/07/trust-report-2021-8421.pdf
Internal Revenue Service. (2021). Exempt organizations business master file extract (EO BMF).
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-fileextract-eo-bmf
Jensen, C. (2013). Foundations and the discourse of philanthropy. Administrative Theory &
Praxis, 35(1), 106–127.
Jordan, A., & Kan, L. M. (2022). The 2022 diversity among philanthropic professionals report.
CHANGE Philanthropy. https://changephilanthropy.org/dapp/2022-report/
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lamarche, G. (2009). Taking account of race: A philanthropic imperative. The Atlantic
Philanthropies.
Lawrence, K. (2002). Reconsidering community building: Philanthropy through a structural
racism lens. A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society, 4(1), 45–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/109999402760286873
Lingard, L. (2019). Beyond the default colon: Effective use of quotes in qualitative research.
Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(6), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-019-
00550-7

103
Marks, B. T. (2019, February). The hidden biases of good people: Implications for philanthropy,
government entities, and the communities they serve [Presentation]. USC Suzanne
Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mills, F. (2017). The state of change: An analysis of women and people of color in the
philanthropic sector. Council on Foundations.
https://www.cof.org/sites/default/files/documents/files/2017-Gender-DiversityReport.pdf
Moniz, A. B. (2017). Giving in America: A history of philanthropy. Historical News, 72(4), 28–
32.
Nielsen, W. A. (1985). The golden donors: Anew anatomy of the great foundations. E. P. Dutton.
Odendahl, T. (1990). Charity begins at home. Basic Books.
Osili, U. O., Clark, C., Bergdoll, J., & Pactor, A. (2023). What Americans think about
philanthropy and nonprofits. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b5904a8a-5081-42cd-bd44-
56740b98fb67/content
Payton, R. L., & Moody, M. P. (2008). Understanding philanthropy: Its meaning and mission.
Indiana University Press.
Pew Research Center. (2024, June 24). Public trust in government: 1958–2024.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/
powell, j. a. (2015). Implicit bias and its role in grantmaking. National Committee for
Responsive Philanthropy. https://www.ncrp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/RP_Spring15_final.pdf
Project Implicit. (n.d.). Race IAT [Measurement instrument].
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1)
Quiroz-Martin, J., Villarosa, L., & Mackinnon, A. (2007). Grantmaking with a racial equity lens.
GrantCraft.
Ranghelli, L., Choi, J., & Petegorsky, D. (2018). Power moves – Your essential philanthropy
assessment guide for equity and justice. National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy.http://www.ncrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Power-MovesPhilanthropy.pdf
Redwood, Y., & King, C. J. (2014). Integrating racial equity in foundation governance,
operations, and program strategy. The Foundation Review, 6(1), 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1190

104
Reich, K. (2020, March 31). How this crisis may upend grant making for good. Chronicle of
Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/how-this-crisis-may-upend-grantmaking-for-good/
Reich, R. (2018). Just giving: Why philanthropy is failing democracy and how it can do better.
Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77jz8
Reich, R., Cordelli, C., & Bernholz, L. (Eds.). (2019). Philanthropy in democratic societies:
History, institutions, values. University of Chicago Press.
Scott, M. (2017). Developing a racial equity stance: Moving philanthropy beyond diversity
statements (Publication No. 10265368) [Master’s thesis, Pepperdine University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work: Powerful ways to build consensus, solve
problems, and make decisions. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Tompkins, F., Tran, C., & Novotny, T. (2018, August). Dissonance and disconnects: How entryand mid- level foundation staff see their futures, their institutions and their field.
Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy. http://www.epip.org/dissonance_disconnects
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022, May 16). ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAS).
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/zctas.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). Tables: Hispanic or Latino, and not Hispanic or Latino by race,
https://data.census.gov./table?q=94109%20race&g=860XX00US93721
Villanueva, E. (2018). Decolonizing wealth: Indigenous wisdom to heal divides and restore
balance. Berrett-Koehler Publishers
von Schnurbein, G., Rey-Garcia, M., & Neumayr, M. (2021). Contemporary philanthropy in the
spotlight: Pushing the boundaries of research on a global and contested social practice.
Voluntas, 32, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00343-9
Winkelstein, M., & Whelpton, S. (2017). Foundations don’t know what they’re risking. The
Foundation Review, 9(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1368

105
APPENDIX A: INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California Information Sheet
My name is Sara Straubel, and I am a student at the University of Southern California working
on a Doctorate in Policy, Planning, and Development. I also hold the role as Senior Program
Officer at The Ahmanson Foundation, a private/independent grantmaking foundation based in
Beverly Hills, California. To learn more about my professional and academic background, please
visit my LinkedIn profile.
I am conducting a research study on implicit racial bias in philanthropy. The name of this
research study is “Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Exploring Implicit Racial Bias in
Philanthropy.” I am seeking your participation in this study. Your participation is completely
voluntary and the results will be anonymous, and I will address your questions or concerns at any
point before or during the study.
You are eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
1. You have a minimum of three years’ worth of grantmaking experience at a private
foundation that has an explicit commitment to racial equity and/or social justice as
demonstrated in the missions, visions, and values.
2. You have recommendation and/or decision-making power at this private foundation.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be giving me approximately 1 ½ hours of your
time through the following activities:
1. Complete an online survey for (10 minutes)
2. Take the Implicit Association Test and email me the results (15 minutes)
3. Participate in a 1:1 online recorded interview over Zoom (60 minutes)
I will publish anonymous, general results in my thesis presentation. Participants will not be
identified in the results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your
personal information. All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or presentations. I
may share your data, de-identified with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: straubel@usc.edu and/or
310.279.0475. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please
contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or
email hrpp@usc.edu.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

106
APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Introduction
Thank you in advance for participating in this survey. As you know, I am a student at the
University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study to explore implicit racial
bias in grantmaking. You were chosen to be a part of this research to reflect on and share your
experiences in grantmaking.
The purpose of this survey is to gather some basic demographic data and understand your
perception of how biases may impact your grantmaking decisions, if at all. I am intentionally
asking you to participate in this survey before you take the Implicit Association Test. Once you
have completed this survey, you will be prompted to take the Implicit Association Test. At the
conclusion of the Implicit Association Test, please email me a screenshot or photo of your
results. After that, I will respond to schedule our one-on-one Zoom interview.
To protect your identity, I will use pseudonyms and not include any identifying information
about your foundation. For questions or technical assistance, please contact me at
straubel@usc.edu.
Survey Items
Item Response Choices
Section 1: Demographic Data
What is your name?
What is your preferred email address?
What is your age? • 29 years and under
• 30–39 years
• 40–49 years
• 50–59 years
• 60+ years
What gender do you identify as? • Female
• Male
• Non-Binary
• Prefer not say
• Prefer to Self-Describe (with
blank space)
How would you best describe yourself? • American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
• White
• Prefer not to say

107
• Prefer to Self-Describe (with
blank space)
Where are you located? • Northeast
• West
• South
• Midwest
• Prefer to Self-Describe (with
blank space)
Section 2: Foundation Data
What is the name of your foundation?
How would you best describe your foundation? • Community foundation
• Corporate foundation
• Operating foundation
• Private foundation
• Other (Please specify)
How long have you worked at this foundation? (if
you have been at your foundation for less than three
years, you are not eligible to participate in this
research)
• 3–5 years
• 6–8 years
• 9–11 years
• 12–14 years
• 15–17 years
• 18+ years
What is your current title? (i.e., program officer,
program associate, etc.)
Section 3: Pre-Test Perceptions
The Implicit Association Test will indicate the degree
to which you have an implicit preference for White
people. Before you take the test, what do you think
your results will indicate?
• No automatic preference
• Slight automatic preference for
Black people
• Slight automatic preference for
White people
• Moderate automatic preference for
Black people
• Moderate automatic preference for
White people
• Strong automatic preference for
Black people
• Strong automatic preference for
White people
At what points in your grantmaking process could
implicit racial bias impact your decision making, if at
all? (select all that apply)
Select all that apply:
• Invitation to Apply
• Letter of Inquiry (LOI)
• Full Proposal/Application
• Site Visit/Phone Call/Zoom
Meeting
• Reporting Requirements

108
• Evaluation
• None
• Other (please specify)
Have you taken the Implicit Association Test before? • Definitely not
• Probably not
• Might or might not
• Probably yes
• Definitely yes
If you answered yes to the previous question, please
share the results, if you remember them.
What percentage of your foundation’s grantmaking
do you think is allocated to nonprofits serving
communities of color?
Closing
Thank you for your participation in this survey. Please click this link and select the Race Implicit
Association Test. You can also paste this link into your browser and then select the Race Implicit
Association Test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
Please do not forget to take a screenshot or photo of your results and share it with me via email.
For questions, please contact Sara Straubel at straubel@usc.edu.

109
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for my research. As you know, I am a student at the
University of Southern California and a Senior Program Officer at The Ahmanson Foundation. I
am conducting a research study to explore implicit racial bias in grantmaking. You were chosen
to be a part of this research to reflect on and share your experiences in grantmaking.
Now that you have completed the survey and taken the Implicit Association Test, I want to
follow up with a more in-depth interview. My questions today are designed to help me better
understand how you interpret your results and what impact implicit racial bias may have on your
grantmaking decisions, if at all. To protect your identity, I will use pseudonyms and not include
any identifying information about your foundation. Is it okay if I record this Zoom because I do
not want to have to take a lot of notes during our conversation and that way I can fully listen to
what you’re saying? Great, thank you. I expect this interview will take about one hour, and I
have 12 questions to get through. Does that time frame still work well for you? Great, then let’s
get started.
Questions
People: (decision making of foundation board members, leadership, staff)
1. What attracted you to philanthropy?
2. With so many potential organizations, how do you decide which nonprofits to support?
3. Have you ever regretted a funding decision you made? If so, tell me about it.
4. Do you and leadership of your foundation always agree on who receives funding or
would it be different if you were the sole decision maker?
Structure: (foundation priorities, policies, procedures, evaluation, goals/desired impact,
types of grants, and language)
5. Walk me through the grantmaking process at your Foundation from LOI to Proposal to
Site Visit to Decision Making to Reporting.
a. Are you invitation only or responsive?
b. Only written applications?
c. Applications available in other languages?
d. Accessible for individuals with disabilities?
6. If it were up to you, how would you change this process, if at all?
7. Can you imagine ways that implicit racial bias could affect this process? In your survey,
you selected [insert survey response].
Context: (the history of philanthropy and acknowledgement of inequities that allowed
wealth to accumulate within independent foundations) (Relationships
/Responsibility/Reputation)

110
8. To whom do you feel responsible in your role as a [insert survey response]?
9. How would nonprofit organizations describe your Foundation’s reputation?
Bias Reflection
10. Did the results of the Implicit Association Test surprise you? If so, why? If not, why not?
As a reminder, you were [insert AIT results].
11. Are there other ways you think implicit racial bias could affect your decision making
that we didn’t discuss?
Grantmaking Results and Reflection
12. In your survey, you indicated that you believe [insert survey response] of your
grantmaking is allocated to nonprofits serving communities of color. I reviewed all the
grants that your Foundation made in [insert year] in Candid’s Foundation Directory. I
used the zip codes of all your grantees that year and compared it to 2020 census data on
race. I want to show you the results in the chat. The nonprofits you support exist in
communities that are [insert grantmaking analysis results] % communities of color or
nonwhite. Take a look – Does anything surprise you?
13. Do you think data like this would help inform your decision making?
14. Is your Foundation currently tracking data like this?
Closing
Those are all the interview questions I have for you today. Is there anything else you would like
to talk about that you feel we haven’t covered?
I want to thank you for all your time throughout this process. The information you’ve shared
with me will be very helpful for my research. As I review my notes, if I have any follow-up
questions, may I reach out to you? Similarly, if you think of anything else you’d like to share,
please don’t hesitate to reach out to me.

111
APPENDIX D: GRANTMAKING ANALYSIS
Race
Foundation 1
Hispanic or Latino 39%
White alone 30%
Asian alone 16%
Black or African American alone 10%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 4%
Some Other Race alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 2
Hispanic or Latino 50%
White alone 20%
Asian alone 14%
Black or African American alone 12%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 3%
Some Other Race alone 1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 3
White alone 42%
Black or African American alone 24%
Hispanic or Latino 20%
Asian alone 10%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 4%
Some Other Race alone >1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 4
Hispanic or Latino 49%
White alone 21%
Black or African American alone 15%
Asian alone 12%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 3%
Some Other Race alone >1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 5
White alone 34%

112
Hispanic or Latino 30%
Black or African American alone 16%
Asian alone 14%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 4%
Some Other Race alone 1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 6
White alone 40%
Black or African American alone 30%
Hispanic or Latino 18%
Asian alone 8%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 4%
Some Other Race alone >1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 7
White alone 33%
Hispanic or Latino 31%
Black or African American alone 24%
Asian alone 7%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 4%
Some Other Race alone >1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 8
White alone 35%
Hispanic or Latino 31%
Asian alone 16%
Black or African American alone 12%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 1%
Some Other Race alone 1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 9
Hispanic or Latino 37%
White alone 29%
Asian alone 19%
Black or African American alone 11%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 4%
Some Other Race alone >1%

113
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Foundation 10
Hispanic or Latino 53%
White alone 17%
Asian alone 14%
Black or African American alone 12%
Population of two or more races of two or more races 3%
Some Other Race alone >1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone >1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone >1%
Total 100%
Grantmaking Data (Candid, 2024c)
Race Data by ZCTA (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study asks to what extent, and in what ways, grantmaking professionals at private foundations experience implicit bias in their grantmaking. Previous research indicates there has been little emphasis on addressing how grantmakers’ unconscious minds may influence their decision making, perhaps perpetuating values that diverge from their foundations’ commitments to social justice and racial equity. Philanthropy is predominately White, and this lack of diversity may affect who receives grants, with fewer resources supporting communities of color, perhaps due to implicit bias of grantmakers. Data were collected through an online survey, the Implicit Association Test on race, and an analysis of grantmaking in 2022, 2023, or 2024 that informed the semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with 10 philanthropic professionals from 10 different foundations. While the interviewees may not all have a bias against people of color, all participants agreed there is bias in their grantmaking process. Despite having explicit commitments to social justice and racial equity, most individuals did not have access to demographic data on the communities their grantmaking dollars were supporting. This is problematic because the study found that philanthropic professionals overestimated their grantmaking to communities of color. Fortunately, philanthropic professionals are motivated by a responsibility to serve communities of color and have begun identifying solutions to mitigate bias. These findings indicate that philanthropic professionals must confront assumptions, stereotypes, and beliefs they may hold. Philanthropy also needs the tools to hold itself accountable to the community it seeks to support and ways to transparently communicate its efforts to the broader public.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Standards of professionalism as a racial construct

PDF

Research to develop a manual for parents, caregivers, and volunteers to teach children from birth to five years of age with intellectual disability living in rural communities in the Dominican Re...

PDF

Older adult community service worker program for Riverside County: community-based solutions for social service delivery

PDF

Health impact assessment, the concept, science, and application in China

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

An exploration: teacher reflections of implicit bias professional development

PDF

Building spiritual capital in religious communities: how and why?

PDF

A framework for evaluating urban policy and its impact on social determinants of health (SDoH)

PDF

Tailoring philanthropic strategies to new generational cohorts

PDF

Where there is discretion, should law enforcement officers at the local level be involved in enforcing federal immigration law? a study for consideration

PDF

Philanthropic foundations and social impact bonds: understanding impact investment approaches among philanthropic foundations

PDF

Improvement of health care delivery in America: medical office compliance certification system implementation

PDF

Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

The institutional context of Korean philanthropy and the role of government and (quasi-) community foundations

PDF

The perceived effects of clean water infrastructure in Nasarawa State, Nigeria

PDF

Beyond commitments: a qualitative examination of the persistent disparities faced by Black women in executive leadership roles post the 2020 crisis and beyond

PDF

For DEI practitioners of color who’ve considered leaving when the rainbow isn’t enough: the impact of DEI fatigue on the retention of Black women in big tech

PDF

Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis

PDF

An examination of the law enforcement response to active shooter incidents in U.S. cities: findings and implications for improving future response efforts

PDF

The Human Performance Intention experiment. A quantum field framework

Asset Metadata

Creator Straubel, Sara (author)

Core Title Good intentions are not enough: exploring implicit racial bias in philanthropy

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Planning and Development,Policy

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 08/27/2024

Defense Date 08/21/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accountability,bias,diversity,equity,grantmaking,inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,philanthropy,private foundations,racial bias,racial equity,Social Justice,transparency

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Esparza, Nicole (committee chair), Lewis, LaVonna (committee member), Patterson, Kaci (committee member)

Creator Email sara.straubel@gmail.com,straubel@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113999U1K

Unique identifier UC113999U1K

Identifier etd-StraubelSa-13439.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-StraubelSa-13439

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Straubel, Sara

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240828-usctheses-batch-1203 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu