Green Funders Show Improvement on Diversity, But More Than Half Still Don’t Share Data

Lightspring/shutterstock

More environmental grantmakers than ever shared their demographic data this year with the leading project tracking diversity in the field, but green philanthropy still gets a failing grade for participation.

Over half — 26 of 50 — of the foundations asked for data did not provide it, according the seventh annual report card by Green 2.0, whose research offers a sector-wide view of both representation and transparency, and is backed by some of the field’s largest foundations. More than 80% of surveyed nonprofits responded.

“It's because they have the checkbook,” said Andrés Jimenez, executive director, of the low participation by funders. “It's really hard to hold foundations accountable.”

Among grantmakers who responded, racial and ethnic diversity is climbing at nearly all levels, with representation of people of color increasing among full-time staff, senior leaders, and heads of organizations, though it dropped slightly on boards. On the other hand, white people remain a majority or plurality throughout green philanthropy. For surveyed nonprofits, racial and ethnic diversity was mostly flat or showed small gains.

Green 2.0’s latest report, officially the 2023 NGO and Foundation Transparency Report Card, comes three years after widespread racial justice protests in the summer of 2020 pushed many foundations to commit publicly to new diversity, equity and inclusion goals, ranging from hiring procedures and internal policies to grantmaking decisions. As my colleagues have reported, progress has been mixed. For green foundations, Green 2.0’s report card is one of the few prominent mechanisms for ongoing accountability on those commitments, putting a spotlight on the internal composition of a field that has been notoriously homogenous for decades.

The report is the result of an extensive outreach campaign by the organization. Each foundation’s human resources head receives four emails in January about an informational webinar put on in February by Green 2.0, an event that provides a walk-through of the survey. According to Green 2.0, reminders to complete its questions are sent every week in March and April, often to multiple members of the HR team, as well as to DEI officers, if applicable. Each organization’s CEO, too, are emailed a couple times.

What is the state of representation at foundations?

Dr. Chandler Puritty, a UC San Diego lecturer who has analyzed the submitted data for the last three years, says the report card’s purpose is to “hold up a mirror” to environmental organizations and ask questions that they may not be asking themselves. This year, that includes its first-ever reporting on gender identity and disability status.

What does the mirror show? A green funder landscape that remains majority white at all leadership levels and predominantly white among staff, though the margins are narrowing. It’s also a field that has made notable gains in racial diversity. The share of people of color rose among full-time staff, senior leaders and heads of organizations, all by 4% to 5%, according to additional data from Green 2.0. Board members were the lone exception (down 0.8%).

The most powerful positions at green funders continue to be dominated by white people, with people of color accounting for less than a quarter of organization heads and board members (24% and 23.5%, respectively), versus nearly half of senior staff and full-time staff (40.3% and 47.1%), the report shows.

Several groups remain completely unrepresented. For the second year in a row, respondents reported zero Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders serving on a philanthropic board, as a foundation head, or as a senior leader. There was also not a single Native American or Alaska Native among the heads or senior leaders of foundations, nor any Middle Easterner or North African among senior staff. Among full-time staff, the first two of those groups were underrepresented relative to their population share, not to mention when considering their exposure to the impacts of climate change.

The report reveals a mixed picture on gender identity. Men accounted for slightly more than half of heads of organizations, while women represented nearly two-thirds of foundation senior leaders. Other identities — nonbinary, agender, gender fluid and two-spirit — had no representation at those levels. Among full-time staff, women accounted for 70% of staff, men 24%, with all other categories falling well under 1%. 

“It's a continued pattern that we're seeing across all of our foundations, and organizations as well,” said Dr. Puritty. “As you go higher up the positions of power, you see less diversity, both in gender and race.”

The report offers a limited picture of people with disabilities working at foundations. No data is available for 84% of staff at the responding institutions. Among those reporting data, roughly 10% identify as having a disability, versus a 13% rate among the U.S. population. Dr. Puritty noted the lower data rates for disability status and gender identity is likely due to the potential employment and personal costs of sharing that information.

Another area with limited data? Most boards. Among those who do respond, many state they “do not have data” for their board members, though such replies have become less common among other segments of staff, said Adriane Alicea, deputy director of Green 2.0.

“What that signals to me… is that most organizations are either not asking their boards to participate — they're afraid to for some reason — or they have boards that are unwilling to provide this data,” Alicea said.

Who did not participate?

I contacted 18 of the nonparticipating grantmakers to ask them why they had not shared their data. Slightly more than 60% of foundations I asked got back to me.

A handful said they plan to participate next year, with some giving explanations for not participating this year. Heinz Endowment cited a leadership change, while MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund said they overlooked the emails sent by the project. Schmidt Family Foundation also plans to join next year. Other nonparticipants included Julian Grace Foundation, which said they may have missed communications during recent staff transitions, and JPB Foundation, which said they did not receive any requests for data. (Green 2.0 said it sent several emails to JPB.) Neither indicated whether they intend to participate in the future.

Some indicated their lack of participation was intentional. Rockefeller Foundation said it does not participate in topic-specific surveys. The Campbell Foundation said “in order to participate in the survey, we were to read a 50+ page guide or review a recorded webinar, and then send a pretty lengthy survey to all staff and board members.” The Richard King Mellon Foundation only confirmed their nonparticipation.

Another nonparticipant, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, said they instead participate in a diversity survey by CHANGE Philanthropy “because it goes beyond demographic data and provides our foundation with actionable information to advance our internal learning and culture change efforts,” according to a spokesperson.

Many of the nonparticipants I asked did not respond. This included some of the nation’s largest environmental funders, like Bloomberg Philanthropies and Sequoia Climate Foundation, and major regional grantmakers, like Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and Joyce Foundation.

A disappointing report card, but signs of progress

The still-low level of response to Green 2.0’s annual survey would, on its own, seem to indicate a lack of interest in one core practice of equity: measurement. As the saying goes, we measure what matters — and we improve what we measure. More charitably, if that data is being collected, it seems that half of grantmakers are not willing to share it.

Yet compared to years past, participation has improved. Alicea said there used to be “enormous gaps” in what foundations shared, with many past participants responding that they “do not have data” on multiple topics. The group has previously tried to collect information on gender identity, for instance, but did not receive enough information to report on it. 

Some nonparticipants also show other signs of commitment to transparency and racial equity. Many who did not share demographic data with Green 2.0 do post related figures on their Guidestar profiles, including Heinz, MacArthur, RBF and Mott. (Such data used to be incorporated into the report card, but Green 2.0 created its own survey to collect additional data.)

Other funders that did not share data this year have committed to the Climate Funders Justice Pledge, which asks grantmakers to send at least 30% of their climate funding to BIPOC-led organizations. Both Schmidt and RBF have signed on, while others follow the transparency portion of the pledge, including MacArthur and JPB Foundation.

Tracking such data is a growing practice, reports Green 2.0. Last year, 64% of foundations collected demographic information on their grantees, up from 40% the year before.

“Foundations are beginning to understand that in order to have inclusive philanthropy, they must know what communities and what people they're funding,” Dr. Puritty said.