Racial Justice: A review of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation's approach
RACIAL JUSTICE
A Review of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s Approach
Feb r uary 202 5
Alignment with racial justice requires an approach to funding which acknowledges the multiple forms of resistance to change.
Written by Chrisann Jarr e tt, Frameworks & Narratives Consulting
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to set out key considerations and pragmatic solutions to the issues raised by organisations within Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s Racial Justice Priority. The consultation focused on three deliverables:
1. Find out from the organisations led by, and for, communities facing racial inequity that are funded under Racial Justice (and potentially other areas of the strategy) how Esmée could best support them, over and beyond funding, and advise us in putting this support in place. This could be practical support to organisations/groups of organisations and/or ways of resourcing organisations to work together.
2. Listen to the views of organisations led by, and for, communities facing racial inequity on how they think Esmée’s funding practice should be improved and help us take practical actions in response.
3. Reflect on how Esmée can best develop its funding and broader support to achieve its Racial Justice outcomes over the next three years.
In this consultation process, 18 organisations out of a portfolio of 30 organisations were engaged in facilitated focus groups, one-to-one conversations, and through the completion of a survey. The consultation was concluded in July prior to the far-right riots which took place across the UK in August.
• 3 focus groups engaged 12 organisations.
• 6 one-to-one conversations were conducted with 6 organisations.
• 12 organisations completed the Racial Justice Survey, these surveys were all anonymous and completed by organisations within the racial justice portfolio who attended the one-to-one conversations or focus groups throughout June and July.
The questions zoomed in on the relationship between grantees and Esmée Fairbairn Foundation as well as a broader discussion on allyship and the philanthropic sectors commitment to racial justice. By exploring the barriers and challenges faced by organisations, the evidence revealed a sector battling with burnout and recurrent racial trauma. Organisations were resilient but significantly under resourced when operating in systems of oppression and there was a collective concern that, four years on from the murder of George Floyd, the UK’s racial justice funding reservoir was drying up.
Organisations were working in an increasingly difficult social, economic and political environment. The work of the portfolio is established in ambitious territory and in confrontation with dominant systems of institutional racism. There is a clarion call for a different approach to funding, one which is deep, structural and trust based. Beyond the distribution of grants, there was a recognition that there needs to be a cultural commitment to racial justice, one which permeates all aspects of the Foundation’s internal policies and practices.
This paper is broken down into four sections, consolidating and revealing the main themes drawn from the conversations and survey results. Direct quotations are used throughout to emphasise broader systemic issues, as well as to highlight individual experiences that deviate from the majority. Such experiences warrant attention and reflection. Each section is followed by pragmatic suggestions for the team at Esmée to reflect on as they consider how to respond to specific challenges. Section four explains the principles of racial justice which were revealed throughout the consultation process and are incorporated in the recommendations, these principles include becoming a long-term partner,
accepting and embracing risk and being introspective. The hope is to bring Esmée Fairbairn Foundation in alignment with the principles of racial justice and ensure longer term commitments to the racial justice field.
1. Challenges and barriers facing racial justice organisations
When asked about the challenges and barriers experienced, the responses revealed a portfolio which was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of work, lacking internal core systems, rife with concerns about their sustainability, and facing multiple forms of resistance as they engage with systems, decision makers and institutions.
The list of challenges include:
• Over 90% of organisations detailed a lack of infrastructure and capacity-building support to develop internal financial systems, governance boards and manage recruitment challenges
• Developing an intentional organisation which incorporates care and nurturing of people with lived experience of racial trauma
• 100% noted staff burnout
• Concerns about violence and rising attacks and how to protect against this
• Reticence and regression from funders to commit long-term to racial justice and the development of a scarcity mindset amongst funders
• Uncertainty about their organisation’s future survival and inability to build reserves
• Increased demands for services and delivery work
• Apathy within their communities to reimagine the future
• Differences in language and framing of racial justice and how this impacts the power struggle with dominant systems that perpetuate racial harm
• Structural barriers and slow progress in the policy space and skills development needed for advocacy
My work personally has shown me that change and progress can happen, but it doesn’t happen effectively, it happens slowly, it happens painfully, it happens at the cost of a lot of emotional labour and resource. It happens in the face of a lot of resistance. – Participant
This work is taxing, and you are hyper vigilant to what is happening in society. – Participant
Lived experience
Leaders are not afforded any respite or time for reflection as they are predominantly expected to react. The majority of organisations engaged in this consultation process had lived experience of racial trauma, the leaders were often reputable within their communities and their activism cannot be
disengaged from their being. They do this work not for professional advancement but to catalyse power shifts and structural change for them and their communities.
Succession planning was a key challenge, limited resources impacted recruitment, retention of staff and the scaling of projects. One participant mentioned a 5-year gap in their pension whilst another mentioned sacrificing their pension and moving funds towards other staff salaries due to the financial constraints.
Four of those engaged in the focus groups faced personal health challenges, two noted they were still doing work whilst in hospital but did not feel they could be transparent with funders. They believed that funders already considered Black-led organisations as risky investments and so additional concerns about the leadership will heighten the risk and may jeopardise funding. These leaders were usually the ones holding all correspondence with funders with no one to delegate the work to as their organisations do not have the internal capacity or fundraising staff.
Not feeling you can be transparent about illness due to managing funders, there was a point when I was in hospital for 2 weeks. I was feeling too scared to be honest about it to funders, if I showed vulnerability or risk this would compromise active grants. A lot of people in my team carry racial trauma, lived experience can never be cut off. It's a powerful tool which doesn't stop, you just carry on living it, running an organisation can be very hard. If the funders find out that I am ill, is this bad PR? – Participant
I was in hospital for 11 weeks, I was responding to emails and attending meetings on the hospital bed because if I gave up work for that length of time a whole tranche of work would have died or I would be replaced. We don’t have what big companies have to cover and health, when people go down the work goes down as well. – Participant
I needed a way of allowing me to get well without guilt whilst also allowing the organisation to continue. –Participant
Exposure to harm and shifting power in the presence of active resistance
Although it could be argued that some of the challenges detailed above by participants are common across social justice organisations – for example developing organisational infrastructure and a high demand for services – there are some acute challenges which are unique to racial justice organisations which require funders to centre and ensure provision for mental health and wellbeing.
This consultation process revealed an abounding overexposure to harm and the interplay between multiple systems of resistance which is unique to organisations who are applying a racial justice lens to their work.
Multiple systems of resistance
Organisations detailed the following:
• Psychological and emotional strain: leading with lived experience and the intersections of race, class, and gender, deepens the complexities of the work for leaders and activists.
• Legal and political pressure: multiple inquiries have been conducted by the government e.g. Grenfell Enquiry and Macpherson Report on Stop and Search, but with no actionable recommendations. There is a constant culture of denial from state institutions, which has the impact of demonising people and families who are victims of policing, state deaths and incarceration.
• Financial instability: organisations operating with limited funding; financial instability has the effect of reducing the capacity to advocate effectively and of intentionally designing organisations with appropriate anti-racist frameworks.
• Community isolation, apathy and opposition: leaders facing ostracisation and opposition within their communities especially in rural counties which are predominantly white. In addition, some organisations remarked that there was a noticeable apathy within communities experiencing racial inequity, and an inability to sign up to a vision of society for racial justice when their immediate circumstances are unchanged.
• Surveillance and media misrepresentation: communities experiencing racial inequity are subject to surveillance. Advocating for an end to structural racism in this environment is a risk; there is a lot of hostility, backlash and media storms. Some organisations reported that they do not share their events or work widely on social media due to fear and vitriol from far-right nationalists and bad actors who weaponise against organisations with constant trolling. The credibility of Black and Brown leaders is often overtly questioned to discredit and destabilise the movement.
The daily challenge is people accepting that something is wrong, but when offered the solutions then there is a pause. The follow through for change, the desire is strong for change, but the actions are not matched. It’s a form of resisting change which is micro, undertone, the avoidance that is really real. –Participant
There is apathy within the communities I work in, it’s hard for them to think about change happening. It takes energy to encourage others to see the world they currently cannot see. When the state tells you, you cannot, you need to undo the damage, how to give people autonomy and encourage them to be a part of the change. – Participant
Solidarity
Having to navigate these systems of oppression leads to exhaustion and burnout. Strains on mental health and wellbeing were frequently remarked and organisations noted that it is not enough to provide grants, there must be solidarity shown by funders through times of difficulty where there has been a public racial attack or when an organisation has been critiqued online. Many were alarmed by the silence from funders after the murder of Chris Kaba in 2022. By funding this work, there is an expectation to stand in solidarity when events and actions in the public arena are an affront to the
principles of racial justice. Organisations mentioned that a response in the form of a public statement condemning such events in addition to a private call or email to organisations on the frontline would have showcased ongoing commitment to the leadership of organisations and by extension the solidarity with communities experiencing racial inequity.
Funders might back you publicly but privately there is reprimanding. Power dynamic before funding and after funding, it's not allyship it's like an overseer – Participant
Since George Floyd, there has been high academic jargon coming from foundations. They adapt the same language around systemic injustice but there is not action to match the level of existential angst around these social issues – Participant
Addressing the symptoms and the root causes of racial injustice
Organisations spoke more generally about the challenges of fundraising. Two organisations explicitly mentioned that they were shifting away from advocacy efforts due to apathy experienced within their communities as well as the fact that they did not have funding partners who understood the slow pace of systemic reform and the difficulties of measuring impact when facing multiple forms of resistance. Energy was therefore being poured into project and delivery work. Even so, organisations understood that delivery and services to address the symptoms of racial inequality and alleviate the barriers faced by individuals within society are vital, but this is not enough to shift power and create lasting impact. The suggested pivot away from advocacy to delivery is not shocking, according to the Racial Justice Audit 2023 1 conducted by Funders for Race Equality Alliance, which Esmée contributed to alongside 13 other grantmakers. It was reported that 56% of grants awarded by grantmakers in the UK addressed symptoms of racial inequity versus 36% addressing the root causes. It could therefore be argued that funding organisations focused on delivery is seen as more palatable for funders because this is where most of the funding is being allocated.
Over time, language evolves but when asked what they were trying to achieve, it was clear that the mission of the organisations in the portfolio was not about addressing racial discrimination, EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) efforts or racial disparity which often focuses on the symptoms of unequal treatment and differential outcomes for people from communities experiencing racial inequity. Instead, organisations were framing their work through a racial justice lens focusing on social transformation by proactively advocating for changes to policies, practices and systems to create an equitable and just society. This throws the work of the portfolio into more ambitious territory that includes power building and structural transformation.
The aspiration is towards transformative justice. We situate the work within a social and political context. Rather than seeing the deaths as individual isolated incidents, we see them as part of a systemic pattern. – Participant 1 Racial Justice Audit 2023- Funders
If people could stop denying institutional racism, we could start to have honest conversations. – Participant
Funders and organisations have used racial equity and racial justice interchangeably. Esmée’s strategy makes it clear that racial equity and racial justice are fundamental necessities for socially and economically healthy nation. However, racial equity and racial justice are distinct in their application and in their relation to the power dynamics with dominant institutions within society.
Grantmaking with a Racial Justice Lens: A Practical Guide 2
Lori Villarosa and Rinku Sen from the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity (PRE) advocate for the evolution from a racial equity lens to a racial justice lens. A racial equity lens separates symptoms from causes, but a racial justice lens brings into view the confrontation of power, the redistribution of resources and the systemic transformation necessary for real change.
Why is this framing important?
Funders need to be cognisant of this powerplay. As the stakes are higher, the level of resistance to the changes being advocated for by racial justice organisations multiply, having more depth and complexities. This work exposes organisations and their leadership to harm; this may be necessary risk assumed by lived experience leaders when confronting dominant white power and racism within institutions. As a result, these conditions call for a long-term commitment from funders like Esmée Fairbairn Foundation to sustain organisations on the front-line to deliver services and to develop their advocacy and influencing muscles.
2 Grantmaking with a Racial Justice Lens: A Practical Guide written Rinku Sen and Lori
- Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity (PRE) p.10
Villarosa (2019)
Key considerations for the team at Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
• Multi-year funding resourcing power building: as racial justice work takes time; the Foundation should continue to provide multi-year unrestricted funding focused on building power within communities experiencing racial inequity and addressing the root causes of racial injustice. This will enable the Foundation to achieve their ambitious 2030 Impact Goal Racial Justice within the A Fairer Future strand‘Organisations are strengthened to use their power to tackle systemic injustice and inequity’.2
• Creation of an Endowment for Racial Justice: the portfolio of organisations highlighted the scarcity of funding as the main source of the precarity felt amongst leadership regarding the survival of their organisations and ability to address institutional racism. While the majority of organisations suggested that multi-year unrestricted funding could address the funding concerns, a more ambitious option was entertained by four organisations who recommended the creation of an endowment fund. It was understood that the issues of racial inequity and racial justice are deeply rooted and in need of structural interventions developed overtime and backed by the certainty of cashflow. An endowment fund could respond to the funding challenges of now and future-proof commitment to the field. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation may consider creating an endowment fund that distributes funding to organisations led by communities experiencing racial inequity. This could be done in partnership with other funders and will signal a clear commitment to support the field and create some certainty for the future to generate money for charitable activities and enable organisations led by communities experiencing racial inequity to build financial stability.
• Learning partner for racial justice organisations: solidarity and deeper relationships need to be formed with grantees e.g. welfare checks on leaders of organisations during or after a public racial attack. However, grant managers may not have the capacity, professional skills or resources to hold these difficult conversations with grantees. The Foundation may want to engage a trusted learning partner to hold and facilitate these conversations:
o Initiation of a relationship with the learning partner must be community-driven and based on request. If a grantee(s) could join the recruitment panel to select the learning partner, this will generate more trust in the recruitment process.
o It is not enough for the learning partner to be from a community experiencing racial inequity To accept this as the main qualifying factor only addresses EDI and representation quotas. There must be an additional requirement for learning partners who are a part of the funding infrastructure to be trained in anti-racist approaches and be trauma informed.
o The learning partner must create spaces for healing and learning.
o There must be a clear communication line between the Foundation and the learning partner who should relay trends, concerns and work with the Foundation to develop a tailored package of support to respond to needs and be accountable to the portfolio.
o The role of the learning partner is not just to uncover challenges but to also highlight successes and innovative approaches which contribute to the vision of a racially just society.
2. The support needs: ecosystem and infrastructure
Support needs
The challenges and gaps in support were inextricably linked to funding sustainability, with 50% of organisations listing funding as the main challenge facing the sector in the next five years and 75% voted access to long-term funding as the main resource needed. 50% also agreed that being well resourced was the main accelerator in achieving change.
In this section, the support needs of organisations will be broken down into two levels, organisational and sector. In both spheres, the consultation has highlighted areas where Esmée could directly respond through existing frameworks such as Funding Plus or through convenings and facilitated connections to enable organisations to connect, collaborate and form effective coalitions of resistance.
Support needs on an organisational level
When asked ‘what is the change you seek?’, it is important to note that all organisations had a clear vision and theory of change when working to advance racial justice. The vision set the direction of travel and organisations had made strides, often working with limited resources. The support needs highlighted below should be seen as essential in enabling organisations to scale their work and enhance their impact to achieve their objectives. These support needs include:
1. Capacity building: assistance needed when responding to the growth and expansion of the organisation and building robust core internal systems such as HR, operations and admin, finance and governance functions
2. Developing advocacy work and approaches to influencing change
3. Recruiting talent and retaining institutional knowledge
4. Enhanced, flexible support packages for mental health and well-being that recognises the difficulties of working in this sector
5. Monitoring and evaluation support: 55% of organisations had limited resources which prevented them from collecting data for impact management
6. 67% stated that the current resources for training to advance racial justice are inadequate
At first instance, the existing Funding Plus offer available to all organisations who are funded by Esmée seems appropriate to respond to the emerging needs of organisations in the racial justice portfolio, but it was not clear that all organisations knew about this offer. The Foundation could be more upfront about this wraparound support.
However, there is a question of whether the Foundation needs to rethink the Funding Plus offer as it pertains to racial justice organisations. In particular, in section one, there is evidence that some of the challenges faced by the portfolio are unique and requires a more robust approach to Funding Plus with a heightened focus on anti-racist frameworks.
For example, it is not unusual for organisations to require HR support In those instances consultation support to develop HR practices processes might be generic and the provider of these services only need to be professional and competent. However, there is an extra layer to this support for racial justice organisations who require their HR policies to be developed through an anti-racist and anti-
oppressive framework. In these cases, the provider of the support needs to be professional, culturally competent and aware of the nuances of the sector.
It's great having this wonderful resource for capacity building, but it doesn't look anything like me….. there is a lot about getting grants out but there is not a lot about resourcing and funding infrastructure so we can build. E.g., EFF (Esmée Fairbairn Foundation) might offer an evaluator who does diversity work but not anti-racism. That is fine but it is not what we need, the problem is that we need people within our communities who can better support. Funders should think about their bank and networks. – Participant
The current Funding Plus offer is arguably too vague, the needs of this portfolio require an intentional bespoke design. The Foundation may consider extending the financial commitment to include an automatic ringfenced offer for capacity building to these organisations and remove the need for organisations to apply. Organisations need only to contact their grant manager and communicate their needs to trigger this support. In addition, through Esmée’s extensive networks, the Foundation should adapt a racial justice lens and appoint consultants and providers who could offer this bespoke training and development support, removing the additional burden on organisations to find this support individually.
An example of a bespoke package could consist of the following statement and offer:
Esmée Fairbairn is committed to organisations advancing racial justice. In addition to the financial grants, we provide support so that organisations can develop robust internal systems and create a culture focused on care and healing. We know that important work is being done on the frontline, work which is met with resistance as organisations engage multiple systems to address the root causes of structural racism. We commit to engaging with contractors and consultants who integrate anti-racist frameworks in the design and delivery of their work as we understand that these providers are an important extension of the ecosystem necessary to advance change.
We offer racial justice organisations the following funding-plus approach:
• Enhanced mental health and wellbeing to support lived experience leaders, front-line staff and community activists.
• Access to HR support which centres anti-oppressive approaches to policies and organisational operations.
• Access to a repository of trusted consultants and intermediaries.
• Access to media and communications support to develop narratives for change and protect against online hate and hostility.
• Advocacy training and support to develop influencing models at a local, regional and national level with a focus on shifting power.
• Monitoring and evaluation training to assist organisations to develop their internal systems and metrics of collecting data.
Grant managers will engage in active listening exercises and the Funding Plus approach will be periodically reviewed, responding to the needs of organisations.
Support needs at a sector level: ecosystem and networks
Social change is made up of critical connections. Organisations echoed a need and desire to engage, connect and collaborate with others in the sector. The survey results revealed the following:
1. 92% of the organisations were already engaged in networks or collaborations to advance racial justice but the majority voted ‘neutral’ to the question on the overall effectiveness of local and national infrastructure support.
2. Existing coalitions who were providing infrastructure support included, The Phoenix Way; Harm to Healing Coalition; Erase the Data Coalition; Alliance for Racial Justice; Black Lives in Music Coalition; Art not Evidence and The Ubele Initiative.
3. 58% of organisations thought that their sector was ‘neutral’ when achieving racial justice and 17% voted that the sector was ‘ineffective’.
4. 42% felt that the collaborations/networks were not strong, with 32% stating they were weak.
5. 82% said that they would benefit from being part of a peer network which should meet once per quarter and 100% stated that purposeful convenings would enhance their mission.
Organisations emphasised the importance of networking with other groups within the racial justice field. This was proposed through the creation of formal peer networks, but it was also spoken about through looser formats such as funders introducing organisations who would then independently explore their potential connection.
One of our funders push to collaborate and meet with other Black and ethnic minorities, they sent a list of all Black-led orgs and made introductions. We have now developed a network with these grantees which was created by us not the funder once the intro was made. – Participant
Networking opportunities with other organisations, this focus group is great because it helps us to be connected, all the funding on racial justice tends to happen in the south and not the north. We don’t get access to that funding, and we struggle to find and connect, and learn from other organisations, it is difficult. This is helpful to prevent duplication of work, to strengthen and build partnerships and everyone has their own specialisms. – Participant
In response to this question posed in the survey ‘what do you think are the main opportunities for the sector in achieving racial justice?,’ 41% of organisations thought that there was potential to work with the new administration post-election to recognise systemic and institutional racism while 50% highlighted the need to strengthen alliances and connections.
Building strong partnerships and coalitions across harmed communities; creating long-term trust-based funding opportunities to reduce precarity and burnout; investing in both local and systemic change; strengthening the sector’s influence on policy. - Survey Response
When asked directly about Esmée’s strengths and role within these collaborations, organisations wanted the Foundation to act as a convenor, connector and enabler of relationships where values aligned.
Convening is the standard answer, we need facilitation and resources that enable the cross-pollination of people in the system. – Participant
Strengthen social movements, bringing Black campaigning activists and campaigners together and cultivate organising infrastructure. Through skills sharing, through strategising, through making meaningful connections that are rooted in love, collectivism and kinship. – Participant
The main support needed is the expansion of networks, getting funding should enable you to have access to better links and support. – Participant
Key considerations for the team at Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
1. Strengthen the cohort through the development of a peer network:
• Organisations valued the space created through the consultation process for them to reflect and connect with their peers.
• The network would be a space to platform innovative approaches, share priorities and collaborate to prevent duplication of work
• Recognising that organisations do not have the time, the peer network sessions could be assumed within the activity and agreement with the learning partner as detailed in section one as opposed to being facilitated separately. This allows organisations to journey with the learning partner and vice versa.
• 67% of the survey respondents would consider the appropriate frequency of peer network meetings to be limited to one per quarter. Organisations could be engaged through reflective sessions, action learning sets and through activities agreed upon in advance by the cohort.
• Organisations would be renumerated for their participation in the peer network as practiced across other peer networks in Esmée such as the New Connections Network and Leaving Care
• Grant managers should consider attending these quarterly sessions to gain insight and capture learning to refine and develop the support being offered to organisations working on racial justice.
• Organisations responding to the survey have already listed the key areas where they would like to explore partnerships (see graph below)
Graph from Racial Justice Survey
Coding explained: organisations ranked the potential focus of collaborations and partnerships, 1 being the most beneficial and 5 being the least beneficial.
Whilst the focus groups, one-to-one conversations and survey responses were comprehensive in detailing the pressures faced by organisations in the racial justice sector and in highlighting a desire to connect with other organisations, the data from all three sources were limited in articulating the form this peer networks should take. More work is needed at this stage to ensure that deliverable number one centred around non-financial support is achieved 3
To address this, the team at Esmée should consider the following next steps:
When closing the communication loop for this consultation, the Foundation could communicate that the need for peer networking and collaborations came across strongly in the responses. Most of the organisations indicated they were already part of peer networks, but there was no mention of their effectiveness in strengthening the racial justice field. To avoid duplicating existing networks and to ensure that the development of any potential peer network or facilitated connections is properly supported by Esmée, the next step is to engage organisations in further exploration of this issue.
This could be done by delivering two focus groups engaging organisations to explore options for connecting and networking. These focus groups would build on the information already shared within the consultation responses but are in need of further development:
• The creation of a peer learning network: investigation of the membership of this network e.g. is it limited only to the racial justice portfolio or can this be extended?
• Role of the facilitator: who is best placed to hold the convened spaces?
3 Deliverable number one: Find out from the organisations led by and for communities facing racial inequity that are funded under Racial Justice (and potentially other areas of the strategy) how Esmée could best support them, over and beyond funding, and advise us in putting this support in place. This could be practical support to organisations/groups of organisations and/or ways of resourcing organisations to work together.
• Exploration of the principles and values when developing a peer network: A strength of any peer network is drawn from the diversity of its members and nuances in approach. Even so, organisations have already made it clear that it is important to have some uniform thinking regarding the language around racial justice and anti-racism. A non-negotiable in the development of a network for organisations advancing racial justice is that it should provide a safe space for individuals from communities experiencing racial inequity to express themselves. Therefore, agreement on fundamental definitions and a shared understanding of institutional racism and white privilege is necessary. On the surface, these differences can be oversimplified as a matter of semantics However, philosophical differences on racism and the way it shows up in horizontal relationships within and across society and in vertical relationships to institutions have broader consequences.
• Responding to training needs: after sharing with organisations the consolidated training and development needs highlighted in this consultation, organisations could advise the Foundation on the most appropriate response to this via Funding Plus or by phasing training to the portfolio as a collective.
• Mapping the assets and specialism within the racial justice portfolio: within the focus groups there should be an exercise which explores the strengths of the portfolio itself. In this consultation there was a broad question asked about the strengths of the field but if there is appetite to develop a peer network, this exercise of mapping strengths could be beneficial in the following ways:
i. Enabling the development of a skills and expertise repository within the portfolio that the peer network can access. Organisations within the portfolio might be more capable of providing training sessions to address knowledge and skill gaps, potentially reducing the need for external training providers.
ii. It will allow Esmée to gain a deeper understanding of the portfolio's existing strengths and facilitate connections between organisations as needed.
2. Convening and connecting funders to racial justice organisations:
• The relational working with grantees will enable grant managers to make relevant connections on an individual level between organisations and funders.
• Alternatively, this can be done in two ways:
i. On a large scale, through an annual gathering of funders already investing in the racial justice space and new and emergent funders who want to gain a better understanding of the work.
ii. Through existing peer funder convenings such as Funders for Race Equality Alliance and the Ten Years’ Time Community of Practice. Organisations could be rotated and invited to speak about their work, key learnings and connect with funders.
• This could potentially respond to the main concern from organisations about regressions in funding and the view that trusts and foundations need to be ‘continually reconvinced to support racial justice work’
• These convenings could strengthen existing funder coalitions, inspire additional investments, pooled funding and recognition of the particular challenges facing the sector.
• It could also ensure that racial justice remains high on the social change agenda.
3. Experience of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Overall, organisations had a positive experience with the Foundation, they were able to engage with the strategy and the specific racial justice outcomes.
• 75% thought that the Foundation’s strategy was clear.
• 66% believed the missions and goals of their organisations were completely aligned with the long-term outcomes for racial justice under A Fairer Future.
• 25% reported ‘neutral’ towards the outcome ‘Racial Inequity in Leadership is Challenged and Changed’ as this outcome was not relevant to grantees as the majority of organisations engaged in the consultation were led by those from communities experiencing racial inequity.
For the purposes of the focus group and one-to-one conversations, the journey with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation was broken down into three stages:
1. Pre-application
• Visibility of the Foundation
• Assessing strategic fit
2. Proposal and assessment
3. Post-grant – relational approach
Some of the organisations were in the early stages of their grant and not at the point of reporting. Even so, they commended the IVAR reporting requirements which departed from the dominant prescriptive reporting requirements from most funders. They preferred this sustainable approach as many warned of a limited capacity for grant management.
The main challenges and areas in need of clarification were the pre-application and the proposal and assessment stage. There are contrasting views about the perceptions of the Foundation and its identity and the interplay with the racial justice commitment. Survey respondents labelled the Foundation as progressive but also critique it as being lofty, historic, traditional and distant, risk-averse, old school, complex, and inflexible.
1. Pre-application stage
Although it was not the experience of the majority, three organisations stated that the initiation of the relationship with the Foundation at the pre-application stage was filled with uncertainty and they detailed what could be best described as a headhunting approach developed by the Foundation’s team. In this approach, the first contact was made by the Foundation, this style of reaching out to organisations was encouraged as it shows that Esmée was scanning the field and actively seeking out
those who they could support. This is not uncommon, post-2020 when the interest in racial justice peaked and philanthropists sought to proactively identify and platform work from organisations led by and for people from communities experiencing racial inequity. This allowed funders to engage organisations and groups undertaking work which would previously be out of scope for large, mainstream foundations.
It was a unique conversational process. They seek you and support you to submit. – Participant
The main drawback of this approach is that it made it difficult for organisations to map the conversation and progression with the grant managers. Some organisations stated that they were unaware of where they stood, or when they would transition from informal conversations to a proposal.
It is not clear that the first conversation was a funding conversation…we did not understand the Foundation, who they are and what they were doing. – Participant
Esmée is good when you are in relationship with them, but it is a difficult task to get in a relationship. It’s quite explicit that they work with people they already have relationships with, and this may isolate grassroot organisations – Participant
In addition, these organisations mentioned that their experience of Esmée in practice departed from the general view that the Foundation was an open-door grantmaker who welcomed applications from all applicants. The headhunting relational approach does allow for open and honest conversations. However, it did call into question the equitable nature and the assessments carried out at the initiation stage, and how this could exclude some organisations who are doing meaningful work to change their institutions and communities but are unknown to the team at Esmée.
There's a mismatch between comms materials and what’s on the website and how things work in real life. Relationships, reputation, and word of mouth are important when working with Esmée and there’s a set of hidden codes and secret dynamics you have to unlock to progress – Survey response
There are some generalisations which might impact Black and Brown people. Expression of interest by a funder is a good idea but as a new org, this might lead to many being sifted incorrectly and lost out in the early stages – Participant
Currently, it is not clear why some organisations are on the radar, and why others are not, or how value judgements and decisions are taken to progress with one organisation above another.
2. Proposal and assessment stage
Whilst organisations agreed that it was difficult to get into a relationship with the Foundation, they also mentioned that once this relationship was formed, the smoothness of the ongoing journey was dependent on how amenable their organisation was to the Foundation and the level of risk appetite among the leadership and governance board.
It seemed that some organisations were unaware of the task ahead at the ‘ping-pong’ stage to mould their applications to a stage where leadership within Esmée would have less questions and be more likely to award a grant.
A review of the entire racial justice portfolio write ups showed differing legal structures, 43% Companies Limited by Guarantee (CLG), 17% Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIO), 23% Community Interest Company (CIC), 3% Community Benefit Society (CBS), 10% Other and 3% Unincorporated.
One organisation made a general reflection on funder requirements for organisations to be registered with established infrastructure for financial management and a board of governance.
There is a corporate bureaucratic need to have some things in place with fast deadlines, some cannot meet these things. EFF tried to be flexible, but it was an uphill climb. There is an assumption that people have the skill set or are able to pull in skill sets e.g. financial. That's not the case, especially when starting out. These things were difficult – it took a year to be registered – Participant
Another mentioned that the main questions from Esmée revolved around their legal structure.
Because of our structure, because we are a Community Benefit Society, funders understand the charity model and the social enterprise model to an extent. Our model in addition to our horizontal way of working means that there were more questions and more interests engaged. – Participant
Another organisation detailed the reason why they chose to register as a CIC. As there is no legal requirement to have a board of governance as a CIC, at the application stage with Esmée this was questioned but they eventually worked with the grant manager to reach a flexible arrangement to their three-year grant. The grant was awarded on the condition that they would receive year one grant payment but year two and three were subject to the condition that changes would be made to their governance structure.
We made a conscious decision to register as a CIC as we did not want political interference from the Charity Commission. It became difficult for us when it came to discussions about our governance, we are a CIC and EFF required us to create a board, eventually we were awarded the grant on a condition that we would develop our board of governance. The difficulty here is that I then had to explain to my team why we had to do this. – Participant
39% of the organisations engaged in the focus groups and one-to-one conversations detailed the proactive role of the grant managers during the application and assessment phase. 7 of the 18
organisations who participated received previous funding. However, one organisation shared that this last application round ‘felt more onerous’ despite previously receiving a grant from Esmée.
We needed to do a lot of work to get the bid up to good quality and get it through all the loops. –Participant
The reflections highlighted the role of the grant manager as crucial; they were described as the advocate, champion and key identifier of potential challenges that would be raised internally.
The team was very responsive to shaping the application to the needs of the organisation – Participant
They ask for a lot of work to bring the application up to standard, it took a lot of time to write a good application which should be distinguished from a robust one that would stand up to the questions –Participant
Apart from the timings the process was really unique and felt very respectful and was delivered with care and consideration. – Participant
Conversational approach requires more work, you are prompted and taken off course, this was enjoyable and trust was built in through that process but there were many more questions. – Participant
One organisation said that their grant manager fought hard to push their application through. The majority of organisations praised grant managers for being supportive, committed, and knowledgeable, many showcasing a good understanding and a genuine interest in the work.
It came across very strongly throughout the consultation that there was an overexertion and heavy lifting imposed on grant managers at the assessment stage When reviewing the transcripts, the main areas of engagement to refine applications can be summarised as follows:
• Overall conversational style of engagement and shaping the application: this meant that there were far more questions involved in the application process and more things to clarify in order to ensure a more robust application was submitted. Organisations were working to different deadlines to formulate a response to requests from grant managers.
• Organisational structure and governance structure: two organisations faced queries regarding their organisational structure. One specifically on the role of their board of trustees and advisory board, and the other on the interests engaged due to their organisational model.
• The development of Esmée’s strategy: three organisations noted that at the time of their initial engagements with Esmée, the Foundation was still clarifying their overall strategy. Here it was implied that the incompleteness of the strategy impacted the mapping of the conversations, length of time from EOI to decision and journey with Esmée.
• Organisation’s work was amenable to more than one funding stream: two organisations noted that their work could fit within multiple funding streams and so this required more engagement with their grant managers to choose the specific priority area where the application could progress.
The challenge of responding to questions, based on whatever your perception of what the funder (EFF) wants to hear….if you have experience of being a fundraiser then it works but there were a lot of questions that came up as opposed to there being 5 questions that you know you have to answer to –Participant
There was one particular experience shared in the focus group which detailed the amount of extra work being done by the grant manager and organisation at this proposal stage. This organisation engaged with the Foundation for an extended period of time and there were additional challenges as the work of the organisation could fit within multiple streams. Eventually, their grant was approved but their financial ask was drastically reduced by 76% with a grant term reduced by 62%.
My experience with my grant manager was different to my experience with the organisation. I perceive my grant manager as someone who worked really hard to advocate for my organisation and take our work forward, someone with lived experience and professional expertise. On the other hand, my experiences with the organisation as a whole were not good. I was sent from pillar to post, the organisation seemed unsure about how to fund me and at what level, it took almost 18 months to get from EOI to money in the bank. I was also asked about things in my governance structure. Working with Esmée to get funding was a bit like being on an obstacle course where the obstacles kept changing…. Grant manager also struggled in the process, as a person with lived experience of racism trying to get funding to a racial justice organisation, I had sympathy for them during this time. – Survey Response
When asked in the survey what the Foundation could improve on, 42% of the survey respondents mentioned long-term commitment to racial justice and two respondents highlighted the importance of the internal commitment to racial justice which was corroborated by other organisations in the focus groups.
Being more actively committed to their values- reflected through their own staffing, policies and procedures as well as reflecting more deeply on the power dynamics involved in their funding model –Survey Response
There appears to be a budgetary issue and reluctance to commit to repeated funding cycles for grantees, which can leave them in a precarious position. – Survey response
3. Post-grant
Generally, organisations were satisfied with the post-grant relationship and 50% voted that the communication with the Foundation regarding their grant was effective and 58% felt confident to
communicate their additional needs. Some organisations preferred the hands-off approach due to the pace of their delivery work and the cyclical nature of fundraising. Others preferred a relational approach and were disappointed by the lack of follow-up. They felt it was necessary to be relational and connect with the Foundation given the size of their organisations and the lack of networks accessible to people from communities experiencing racial inequity.
The Funding Plus offer was known to most organisations but this offer must be made explicit as part of the award process. As it stands, 33% were satisfied with Funding Plus and 33% were neutral.
When you are from a specific background, you don’t always want to ask, the Foundation should curate the support package and be upfront with it to prompt an organisation’s thinking. – Participant
Key considerations for the team at Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
• Greater clarity and transparency in the grant process: The website makes clear the stages to the Esmée application process. However, from conversations with organisations, it seems that there is an additional engagement prior to the EOI – this stage needs to be standardised:
o The power dynamics cannot be understated, and to prevent uncertainty it needs to be made explicit that this is an exploratory or prospective funding conversation.
o A roadmap and timeline of next steps should be effectively communicated so that organisations know where they are in their prospective relationship with the Foundation
o There could also be more clarity on the process for organisations who have previously received funding from the Foundation and have passed due diligence checks. The process for renewal, extensions or grants in other priority areas for existing grantees should not be as onerous as first-time applicants. These organisations are already known to the team at Esmée and trust has been established.
o There must be consideration of the strain on grant managers from communities experiencing racial inequity and how the current internal systems, expectations and need to make the case for the Foundation to invest in racial justice work could replicate harm.
o This consideration should be considered in light of the cultural alignment recommendations in section four of this report.
4. Allyship: the role of a racial justice funder
In this section, organisations explored allyship as a concept and the need for funders to be reflective and make internal changes where necessary to uphold the integrity of their commitment to racial equity and racial justice.
It’s not what they can give, it’s about an understanding and an attitude and how they show up and champion the work. Funders can do better to show support when it feels like they are partnering with the organisation as opposed to being an administrative overlord over a contract. – Participant
Example of a good funder is one which journeyed the work with you, someone who is also changed through the process of the work and not an observer. They have to be as vulnerable as you, they must accept the vulnerability and difficulty of being in this work. – Participant
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s commissioned research into the Act for Change Fund in 2021 led to the creation of five primary roles for funders investing in youth-led change 4. Without knowledge of these roles, organisations in the focus groups echoed all as vital for funders advancing racial justice.
The list is as follows:
1. Funders should be Active Listeners: practicing deep listening to understand context, identify gaps and move resources to support groups/organisations to build power.
2. Funders should act as Convenors: creating spaces for reflection, facilitate conversations so that organisations can share knowledge and forge connections.
3. Funders should bridge gaps: having identified gaps, funders should respond to the needs of the field through financial and non-financial interventions.
4. Funders should use their power to help the field: funders should recognise their own power and use it in a way that helps to leverage the work of organisations and youth organisers. This should be done in a way that complements what is already being done by organisations and activists on the front-line.
5. Funders should provide research and use learning for amplification: funders should organise the rich learning provided by organisations within their portfolios and to offer a case for supporting activism.
There was a clarion call for Deep, Structural, Trust-based Funding. To answer this call, trusts and foundations must embark on cycle of introspection to ensure that they bring their commitment to the next level. It is necessary for this work to be done without pausing grant priorities or unduly delaying the delivery of grants.
Based on the responses to the consultation, the following stages have been developed to best describe the journeys funders embark on when committing to support racial justice.
Three stages to the funding continuum for trusts and foundations who have a racial justice priority:
Stage 1: The Acknowledgement
Stage 2: The Response
Stage 3: The Cultural Commitment
4 Youth-led social change: early recommendations for funders by Chrisann Jarrett (2021) https://fundingyouthactivism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03.pdf
The development of Stage 1 The Acknowledgment and Stage 2 The Response, was inspired by responses from organisations who reflected on the immediate response from the philanthropic sector postGeorge Floyd and the creation of new funding pools for communities experiencing racial inequity.
Stage 3 The Cultural Commitment was developed with the reflections on the financial insecurity experienced by organisations who believed that the commitment to racial justice amongst funders was waning, despite the implicit presence of racism in the UK, increases in the demand for services and continued calls for an end to institutional racism.
In addition, Stage 3 was inspired in part by reports developed by the Practical Guide Grantmaking with a Racial Justice Lens 5 which highlights the practical steps needed scale commitment to racial justice for grantmakers who have made the initial step to have a racial justice strand. Lastly, the ambitions of Stage 3 take inspiration from the roadmap for action detailed in the Ten Years’ Time Report ‘Racial Justice and Social Transformation: How Funders can act’, which articulates the role of self-reflection, inspired conversations, stronger risk appetites and a need for organisations and funders to practice racial justice ideology when advancing racial justice 6 .
Stage 1: The Acknowledgement
• Here the key question is ‘Why should we fund racial justice work?’.
• This requires identification of the problem e.g. racism permeates all aspects of the social and economic fabric of society and impacts on all other priority areas from education to climate justice.
• These problems are systemic and can only be addressed through coordinated efforts that are resourced over time
• Important work is being done by organisations in close proximity to communities experiencing racial inequity. These organisations are historically underfunded, under-resourced and often siloed. Organisations led by communities experiencing racial inequity do not have the same access to funding pools in the same way their white counterparts do.
Stage 2: The Response
• Here the key questions are ‘Who and what should we fund? and ‘How should we fund?’
• A strategy is then created, and support is then awarded to organisations through core, project or unrestricted grants. The distribution of grants signals the foundation’s external commitment.
• Assessments of the ecosystem and surrounding infrastructure is considered, and additional support provided to organisations advancing racial justice.
• Trusts and foundations may also consider joint funding initiatives and coalitions to maximise investment and impact.
5 Grantmaking with a Racial Justice Lens: A Practical Guide written Rinku Sen and Lori Villarosa (2019)Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity (PRE)
6 Ten Years’ Time Report: Racial Justice and Social Transformation: How Funders can acthttps://tenyearstime.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/08/Racial-Justice-and-Social-Transformation-2.pdf written by Eli Manderson Evans, Cobi-Jane Akinrele and Aditi Shah
Stage 3: The Cultural Commitment
• Stage one requires funders to make an external assessment of society, by evaluating data and horizon scanning, problems are then diagnosed and in stage two, responses are resourced. Stage two is strategic but predominantly transactional.
• Stage three requires an internal assessment of the grantmaker and asks the question ‘How can we ensure we are in alignment with our commitment to racial justice beyond the issuing of grants?’.
• This is based on the acceptance that the funding ecosystem can perpetuate harm and there is an obvious power imbalance between grantees and grantmaker. In this stage, the funder is expected to hold a mirror up to its own cultures, practices, attitudes, leadership and governance. They are also expected to cultivate spaces for feedback from staff from communities experiencing racial inequity and develop ways to navigate internal conflict, recognising that this discomfort is necessary to instigate change.
o This commitment cannot be fulfilled by only developing EDI practices or by increasing the representation of people from communities experiencing racial inequity.
• Without an internal alignment to principles of justice and equity, governance boards will constantly need reconvincing to support racial justice in the long-term.
What steps can a funder take to evidence Cultural Commitment?
The consultation process highlighted the following principles as evidence of a cultural commitment.
Become a Long-term partner
• A racial justice funder is one who commits to deep, structural trust-based funding.
• Willingness to treat grantees as partners and not just beneficiaries, encouraging a two-way learning process.
• Funders must journey with organisations and build strong, meaningful and supportive relationships with leadership of organisations.
• Sustaining organisations led by leaders from communities experiencing racial inequity is an act of resistance to enable grantees to achieve lasting impact.
Accept and Embrace Risk
• Acceptance that racial justice work is political, and this cannot be avoided. There needs to be a higher risk tolerance and less avoidance.
• Supporting a range of legal structures suited to deliver the necessary work.
• Actively affirm and publicly support the progressive work of organisations.
• Stand in solidarity with communities who experience racial injustice at critical moments as boldness is needed to catalyse systemic change.
Be Introspective
• Ongoing commitment to self-examination, ensuring that internal practices, structures, and policies align with the values of racial justice, and this is evidenced in their implementation.
• Continuous learning to develop anti-racist practices and respond to the complexities in the evolution of the work undertaken in the racial justice sector.
• Uphold integrity at all levels of decision making. Being transparent and ensuring that funding is distributed equitably and reaches organisations led by and serving communities experiencing racial inequity.
Recommendations
The recommendations below include practical suggestions to help Esmée Fairbairn Foundation in the aspiration to better support racial justice and integrate the principles of justice.
Redistributing resources and investing in a shared vision for racial justice
1. Evolving from a Racial Equity to a Racial Justice lens: There must be an evolution from a racial equity lens to racial justice lens. A racial equity lens separates symptoms from causes, but a racial justice lens brings into view the confrontation of power, the redistribution of resources and the systemic transformation necessary for real change. Funding initiatives and services that address the symptoms of racial inequality and help reduce the barriers faced by individuals in society is important, but this alone is insufficient to shift power dynamics and create lasting impact.
2. A shared vision for a racially equitable society: A genuine cultural commitment to racial justice involves embracing the principles of racial justice and sharing a collective vision of a racially equitable society. This shared vision must be accepted at all levels of decision making and there must be a recognition that racial justice intersects with all other priority areas.
3. The development of an Endowment for Racial Justice: An endowment fund could respond to the funding challenges of now and future-proof commitment to the field. This could address the concerns of the racial justice field who share concerns about funders long-term commitment to the field. The issues of racial inequity and racial justice are deeply rooted and in need of structural interventions developed overtime and backed by the certainty of cashflow.
Become a Long-term Partner
4. Provide multi-year unrestricted funding:
• Currently, the racial justice portfolio has 30 organisations which is made up of 13 unrestricted, 16 core costs and 1 project grant. 80% of these organisations received 3-year multi-grants with
the exception of 2 organisations receiving grants for 1 year or less. Four organisations receive grants of 60 months.
• Systemic change is slow and requires long-term resource, the Foundation may consider a future aim of funding organisations in 5-year rounds, this will allow for a deeper relationship and offer grantees the ability to adapt and innovate.
5. Improved clarity and transparency in the grant process: communities experiencing racial injustice have historically been underfunded and underserved, so expectations need to be clearly communicated, and questions standardised. This will enable organisations to know where they are in the process in their prospective relationship with the grantmaker.
6. The assessment stage in the grant making process should be the same for all priority areas: organisations focused on racial justice should not be subjected to a more stringent due diligence process that differs from the approach used by the funder in other priority areas.
7. Resource the development a strong peer network amongst grantees: providing the space to connect and raise concerns. To ensure this is a two-way relationship grant managers and leadership should be present at specific network meetings and engage in conversation with leaders of organisations.
• The learning from the New Connections Network is crucial and can provide the blueprint for the creation of a peer network for the Racial Justice priority.
8. Prove inbuilt flexibility within the funding arrangement: in addition to the main grant, the Foundation should offer wrap around support that will enable grantees to respond to crises and develop strategic partnerships to respond to immediate needs.
9. Enhanced mental health provision: organisations advancing racial justice are exposed to harm when confronting institutional racism, this is compounded for leaders with lived experience who continue to face racial trauma. Resources must be integrated to acknowledge the unique complexities faced by organisations applying a racial justice lens to their work and to support the mental health and wellbeing of leadership and front-line staff.
10. Tailoring Funding Plus and developing a repository of culturally competent consultants and professionals: support and technical assistance provided to organisations must be tailored, and funders should build a pool of culturally competent consultants. The challenges faced by racial justice organisations are distinct and demand a more comprehensive approach to Funding Plus, emphasising anti-racist frameworks. Any consultants or professionals hired by funders to collaborate with funded organisations must be professional, culturally aware, sensitive to the nuances of the sector, and committed to applying an anti-racist framework in their work.
11. Work with internal communications to demystify the role of a grant manager and their key responsibilities: in the pursuit of transparency and trust building, organisations need to be clear about the internal dynamics of the Foundation and the reason why they have less contact with grant managers after the grant has been awarded.
12. Consider the role of intermediaries who are mission-driven organisations that aim to distribute funds more effectively to smaller grassroot groups: Esmée currently provide support via established funding priorities as well as through intermediaries as seen in the Global Majority Fund.
• The Global Majority Fund has made 449 investments to grassroot projects led by leaders with lived experience of racial inequity. The Foundation could do more to publicise this so that grantees are aware of the additional monetary commitments to the field. This involvement shows that Esmée understands that there may be barriers to some organisations receiving funding and, that funds could be better distributed by another partner who is in closer proximity to communities experiencing racial inequity and have the required specialism to reach grassroot groups.
• Within the current grant portfolio, the Baobab Foundation acts as an intermediary providing flexible longer-term funding to communities through simplified approaches.
• The Foundation should collate data and learning from the intermediary model and the methods used to reach communities and distribute funder more effectively. This learning should influence future practice and solidify commitments to trust-based grantmaking.
Accept and Embrace Risk
13. Create a space where the A Fairer Future team can have honest conversations about risk:
There must be an acceptance that racial justice work is political, and this cannot be avoided. There needs to be a higher risk tolerance and less avoidance. This space should be facilitated by a racial justice expert who also understands the nuances of grant making. The agreed output should be to develop and implement a risk management framework that guides decision-making while allowing for calculated risks within the Foundation
Key questions that should be considered:
• In what areas have we traditionally accepted risk?
• What are the legal parameters we have to operate in as a registered charity?
• Reviewing the last three years of the Racial Justice priority, what are some of the reasons we have given for not awarding racial justice grants to specific organisations? Does this fit a pattern?
• Thinking about our other priority areas, is there a higher level of risk appetite elsewhere and why?
• How can we work to redefine risk at a leadership and governance level?
14. Communications strategy focused on solidarity: develop a communications strategy which details how the Foundation can show solidarity in external communications.
15. Leverage learning from funding coalitions and networks: the Foundation could also participate in funder only learning networks to share experiences and consider approaches and strategies for managing risk and showing solidarity publicly.
Be Introspective
16. Lived experience: consider opportunities and spaces where staff from communities experiencing racial inequity can voice their experiences, discuss harm and healing. This can be assumed within staff meetings and quarterly reports. If harm is caused, there must be a way of continuing the conversation, this is an invitation to have a broader discussion on race. There should be clear actionable steps to address the triggers of harm and foster healing within the working environment, otherwise staff will feel as if they have not been heard.
17. Data collection: racial justice cannot be accomplished without trustworthy data that grounds arguments for practice, policy and cultural change.
• Commission an external provider to conduct a racial justice audit. They will review the Foundation’s grant making practices, culture and policies to ensure that a racial justice lens is institutionalised within the Foundation
• Share with grantees the type of culture the Foundation is trying to build and incorporate feedback from grantees.
18. The Board should be proactive on racial justice and embrace uncomfortable conversations:
Create opportunities for members of the board to connect with grantees to ensure closer proximity to foster conversations and reveal the reality of racial justice in society. This may then help with board decision making and commitments to racial justice. Key questions to consider:
a. Is racial justice on the board agenda?
b. When developing the current strategy, what were the internal markers for progress when advancing racial justice?
c. What opportunities are there to review this progress?
d. Does the board consider racial justice as a full-board responsibility?
About Chrisann Jarrett
Chrisann Jarrett is an award - winning social entrepreneur and DOER with strong focus on systems efficiency and change. She is a Law graduate from London School of Economics (LSE) and is the founder and CEO of the UK charity, We Belong (est. 2019) which focuses on improving outcomes for young people and advocating for systemic changes to the UK’s immigration system. This charity builds upon the success of Let Us Learn, an award - winning project Chrisann founded in 2014 at the age of 19 to advoc ate for equal access to higher education for young migrants.
She is currently a Trustee for the Allen & Overy Foundation, as well as an Advisor to the UCL Policy Lab and member of The Ordinary Hope Project.
Since 2020, Chrisann has been an independent consultant to trusts and foundations working to assess grant portfolios and develop infrastructure on changemaking. Chrisann evaluated the impact of the £3m Act for Change Fund, and created the blueprint for the UK’s first Alliance for Youth Organising. In 2023 Chrisann was named in the Top 25 Visionaries by Red Magazine.
www.frameworksnarratives.com
About Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation aims to improve our natural world, secure a fairer future and strengthen the bonds in communities in the UK. We unlock change by contributing everything we can alongside people and organisations with brilliant ideas who share our goals.
The Foundation is one of the largest independent grant - makers in the UK. In 2023, we provided £58.4m in funding towards a wide range of work in support of our aims. This includes additional funding to organisations we fund in response to the rising cost of living. We also provide social and impact investment for organisations with the aim of creating social and environmental impact
