AC Discussion | Charity or Solidarity: Philanthropy and Cultural Institutions
2020 transformed the cultural sector with renewed calls for racial justice and institutional accountability. On May 27th, Rebecca Carew, Director of Strategic Partnerships & Corporate Relations at the New York Public Library; Alex O’Hanlon, neighborhood organizer and Engagement Coordinator at One Omaha; and Caitlin Osborn, Deputy Director at Amplify Arts came together for a virtual discussion to reimagine how philanthropy in the arts might match calls for solidarity with meaningful reform.
Watch the full conversation, or read through the transcript below to find links to additional resources, and share your thoughts in the comments section.
Title of Discussion: Charity or Solidarity: Philanthropy and Cultural Institutions
Panelist 1: Rebecca Carew, Director of Strategic Partnerships & Corporate Relations, New York Public Library
Panelist 2: Alex O’Hanlon, Engagement Coordinator, One Omaha
Panelist 3: Caitlin Osborn, Deputy Director, Amplify Arts
Contributing Moderator: Lillian Snortland
Date of Discussion: May 27, 2021
List of Acronyms: [RC] = Rebecca Carew; [AO] = Alex O’Hanlon; [CO] = Caitlin Osborn; [LS] = Lillian Snortland; [PF] = Peter Fankhauser
Transcript
[PF] Welcome everybody. I think we’re going to go ahead and get started. It’s great to have you all here for tonight’s Alternate Currents panel discussion: Charity or Solidarity: Philanthropy and Cultural Institutions with Rebecca Carew, Alex O’Hanlon, Caitlin Osborn, and our moderator Lillian Snortland. Special thanks to the Pape Family Foundation, Nebraska Arts Council and the Nebraska Cultural Endowment whose support makes virtual programs like this possible.
My name is Peter and I’m the program director here at Amplify Arts. For anybody who’s new to Amplify, our mission is to support unity, progress, and innovation in the cultural sector and Alternate Currents is a program that helps us do that by providing context for national and international conversations in the arts with responses from people working at the ground level. That happens in a few different ways. The Alternate Currents blog, this bi-monthly discussion series, and a working group of ten artists and organizers who meet monthly to develop project based responses all come together to move these conversions into action. Lillie, our moderator tonight, is also a member of our 2021 Working Group.
Tonight’s panel discussion is part of a year-long investigation of the future of our cultural institutions and how that future might be shaped by embracing equity, transparency, and accountability. Our panelists will be in conversation with another for 40 or 45 minutes before we open the floor to questions. At that point, please feel free to enter your thoughts or questions into the Q&A or the chat.
I also want to mention quickly that a video and transcript of tonight’s discussion with links to additional articles and more resources will be posted to the Alternate Currents Blog in the next week or two so you can revisit the discussion there, leave your thoughts in the comments section and help us keep this conversation going. Go to our website anytime--amplify arts.org--and click on the Alternate Currents tab to read, watch, and listen to more conversations like this one.
I am so excited for tonight’s discussion and to learn from Rebecca, Alex, Caitlin, and Lillie. So thank you all again for being here and Lillie, passing it over to you.
[LS] Hi everybody. Thanks for being here and thanks to all the panelists. Peter pretty much covered all the front-end stuff, so I figured we could just dive into personal introductions. I can go first. My name is Lillian. I live in Baltimore right now. I'm a writer, a multi-disciplinary artist, and I primarily work in the non-profit arts sector in the development world. So, this is a panel that I'm really excited to get to listen in on and ask questions about.
Alex, do you want to go next?
[AO] Sure. My name is Alex O'hanlon. I live in Omaha currently. I work at One Omaha as an Engagement Coordinator. One Omaha supports neighborhood organizers and I'm at that front line of interacting with those folks. I also do a lot of work around produce and growing food in the city so I definitely live in that non-profit world and love it and hate it all at the same time. Yeah. Also excited about tonight.
[LS] Rebecca, do you want to go?
[RC] Sure. My name is Rebecca Carew. I work in corporate fundraising, also in the nonprofit sector. I've worked nonprofit arts and culture for about 15 years, in a variety of institutions, including museums and the performing arts. I'm personally very passionate about visual art. I'm a burgeoning collector and I'm very excited to be here.
[CO] Guess that leaves me. I'm Caitlin Osborn. I'm the Deputy Director here at Amplify [Arts]. I’ve been here for about five years almost and do a variety of things as a Deputy, but I've been a part of development and fundraising in all capacities during my time here, from grant writing to running annual campaigns. Yeah. I'm excited to be in conversation and learn from my fellow panelists.
[LS] Great. Well, I think a good place to start is finding out, from all of your perspectives, what you think the key differences between charity and solidarity are when it comes to philanthropic giving. What harm do you see potentially being reproduced or created with a charity mindset as opposed to a solidarity mindset? Caitlin, do you mind diving back in?
[CO] Yeah, of course. Key differences from my perspective revolve around two core things and they're all intertwined, of course, but the top two things for me are: trust and motivations of the giving. So, trusting, on the solidarity side, trusting that communities have and understand solutions to the issues that they're facing. Communities know what they need and providing resources and getting out of the way is that trust piece.
Then, the second one, motivations, what are the motivations to give? Is it the tax benefit? Is it wanting something in return? Is it a power move? Or do you believe in what these folks are doing and you want to help them achieve it? Related to motivations, and then i'll pass it off to Rebecca or Alex, what are the expectations after the gift? Smaller organizations with limited resources which, as we know, are often led by BIPOC folks, disabled folks, LGBTQ+ folks and might not be able to meet donor expectations like maybe larger orgs that are white-led. So, is the donor putting more of a burden on the organization after they give? What are those motivations and expectations? I'll pass it on to Alex or Rebecca
[RC] I essentially agree with all of that. I think one stark difference is that when you think “charity,” it feels very synonymous with a savior complex. Philanthropy is based upon doing good, despite the means by which wealth was accumulated, and that's the foundation of it. It perpetuates the “haves” and “have-nots” and ultimately the “haves” drive that decision-making. You know, charity, I think, reinforces communities as charity cases. I think that there's this idea that communities lack something as opposed to being in celebration, being in support of community, especially given the immense social capital that comes to serve as dividends taken from wealth that was gained on the backs of a lot of these communities. I think solidarity asks, “who decides?” Where does that decision-making power lie? It moves us in the direction of collective care collective, care of populations that have been historically excluded and making sure that collective needs are being met. It's decentralizing power.
But then when we think of these models and we think of solidarity, I think that we have to also, while it's important to explore new models of engaging with society, it goes without saying that we still live in a very entrenched capitalistic society. So, I think it's important that while we develop new models, we still work towards carrying out equitable practices as much as possible and scaling towards a different type of model. I think either way, what has to be looked at and always scrutinized, no matter what the model, is essentially the intersection of race and wealth.
[AO] I definitely agree with all that you both said. I feel like trust is a big one that came up for me when thinking about that--trusting folks to know what the issue is and have some ideas about how to solve it, but also trusting that if people try one thing and it doesn't work, that doesn't mean you should no longer receive funding. Trust people to try things out and, for groups receiving funding, give them that confidence to experiment; they don't just have to try one thing. Also, with trust comes time. Instead of the limit of “here's some money and you need to do something in the next seven months to solve this problem,” allow people to be comfortable while approaching solving a problem. They shouldn’t be running to get something solved as quickly as possible but rather have the time and feel like they can think through something and try a couple of different options.
Just to go off what Caitlin said, the motivation with charity, a lot of times, is going to be control. I'll give you a little bit of money and, if you act in the right way, then maybe I'll give you more. If you don't, then it’s gonna end. Also, what Rebecca was saying about that savior complex, that’s exactly what charity is built upon--I have decided that I will grant you with this resource. Whereas with solidarity, I think the motivation is we have a problem and we need to solve this. I have access to resources so that's gonna be my contribution. You have eyes on the ground; that's gonna be your contribution. We should both come out of this relationship with more equal footing.
[CO] I wanted to add too if I could, Lillie, thinking about harms that are reproduced or perpetuated, there's a lot on the funder side, but on the development side, there are practices that also perpetuate this kind of mindset in our relationship with donors. If you've ever gone to any type of professional development around fundraising, you know it's very donor-centric. It's all about saying you did this, you're a hero, thank you so much. And of course we should be thanking donors but it's almost othering the donor and reproducing this hierarchy. Just wanted to shine some light on things on the development side that maybe need to shift in our relationship with donors. If you've heard of the Community-Centric Fundraising started partly by Vu Le and partners of his, I'll drop that in the chat. Yeah, just thinking about the development side too.
[AO] Yeah, that makes me think that an issue charity perpetuates is the idea of two communities as opposed to one.
[LS] Yeah, I agree completely. I think particularly from the developmental side, what has been on my mind is this idea that nonprofits serve as a middleman. You have funders or foundations on one side, community on the other, and we're almost a buffer. That buffer is not designed to really be a true go-between between either side. It's really just to talk to funders and protect them from actually having any one-on-one true interaction with the people that they claim to be helping. It's a little different in the art sphere because it's a patron potentially who's coming into your building, into your show, into your facilities. I think it's easier to think of it in the context of more direct services--helping potentially someone with a direct service like providing them shelter. Those people who need shelter aren't necessarily ever going to come into contact with the people who are funding that gift. They want to think about it as a gift, not a right.
I agree with everything that you said and I would love to ask, what structural changes, particularly in this last year, are you sensing? How are organizations committing and actually following through and how does that connect with finances? What are you seeing happening now?
Let me know if that was too vague of a question. I can try to reframe it.
[RC] Could you reframe it, if you don't mind?
[LS] Absolutely. I think we can all agree that there have been some massive changes, both on the ground but also in how an organization has to commit and follow through and be held accountable to the community. So, I'm curious, what you are seeing from your different perspectives and your different roles? How has the cultural sector been impacted by these last two years?
If that question doesn't elicit any big thoughts, I have plenty of other questions I can move on to.
[AO] From my point of view, and I don't work in admin or development, but from the point of view of working as an organizer, I haven't felt a shift. I feel just as frustrated as before. I know that a lot of organizations and companies over the last year have been like, “Social justice is really important to us and we're totally coming for this. We're gonna do this right, we promise.” From my point of view, I haven't seen follow through on that.
[RC] I think that I've seen a shift in funding, to start there. Obviously, we know that shift has happened in terms of supporting BIPOC communities, addressing racial inequities, social justice. There's also been, if we're talking in general terms, a shift towards supporting direct services organizations that have been funding folks on the ground who are working with the global pandemic and how it affects their communities. That shift has happened within a lot of corporate philanthropic programs, as with foundations and nonprofit organizations who’ve shifted their programmatic priorities, last year into this year. I think that I remain cautious though in the way that we all do. I think that there's this wanting to know if there’s authenticity behind these long-term commitments. I know there were the statements, and we could talk about the symbolism and the empty symbolism, but at the end of the day it's about changed behavior.
The immediacy with which the pools of money have shifted to those critical areas, as a fundraiser, it's great. It's great that money is actually being directed in a manner that companies are committing 200 million over five years, 1 billion over ten years, 5 million over three years. Those things are actually happening and that money is getting directed. I think it's about cautious awareness and looking for changes in behavior and holding companies, foundations, non-profit organizations alike--who also pivot and shift to capitalize at times--accountable.
[LS] Do you see accountability as a move towards an actual solidarity economy or is it just for now what we need to do and we can culturally shift after that money has been moved?
[RC] Yeah, I don't know what bread crumbs this is leading toward. It can certainly be used as a tool when making the case for, or serve as a model, moving towards a solidarity economy. Going back to what I was saying in the previous question, I think that we have to almost look at things constantly with a double consciousness. There's where we want to go. How do we scale there? Do we scale there quickly? Do we scale there strategically? Where are we right now? So, I don't know. It remains to be seen.
[CO] I would agree. I'll be interested to see if this results in any long term behavioral change. There was a really big push to get money out the door very quickly to organizations, but I wonder if longer term commitments will be embedded into funders’ strategies. I think the pandemic really highlighted the precariousness of the cultural sector with all the earned income that was lost. We [Amplify Arts] don't have an endowment. Not everyone has an endowment. I hope this shifts into longer term commitments, but also, if you think about the history of philanthropy and like Rebecca referenced earlier, the means by which these folks came to their wealth, it's really not in the interest of the institution to provide what is actually needed to create systems change because then they wouldn't need to exist. Their actions are, as I see it, self-preservation, really. So, I'm also cautious to see if this will translate into longer term support and strategy.
[LS] I would love to shift more to the grassroots level. I'm curious how you see nonprofits relating to grass grassroots movements going on. In moving towards a solidarity economy, how would a nonprofit institution or organization relate or communicate or collaborate with people in the community doing the work? What if that work goes against the interests of those organizations? If that can change and become a reality, I feel we will have made progress towards true solidarity. I’d love to hear what you see out in the world.
[CO] Just to clarify your question, are you asking about relationships between philanthropic entities and grassroots organizations or nonprofit cultural institutions and grassroots movements?
[LS] I would say between nonprofits and grassroots movements, but obviously nonprofits are receiving money from philanthropic arms. So, with the money coming from philanthropic arms, how does that work when grassroots movements are potentially running against the interests of philanthropists? As you said, it is in their best interest not to structurally change because that is how their money comes to them and how they are able to give it out charitably.
[AO] That question, how do nonprofits work with grassroots organizations, feels easier to answer than, how do funders work with grassroots organizations. I think it goes back to something Rebecca has referenced a couple times, the idea of phases and looking at what we have now and then scaling. I think the difference between solidarity and charity is, is it you and me or us? It's easier with more locally based nonprofits to have that feeling of us. A lot of times, people working in nonprofits are also from the community the nonprofit serves. In that way, the movement in solidarity would be pushing back on funders a little bit and saying, “actually, that's not what the needs are,” and having those conversations. It's a big part of having a relationship with your funder, right? So, using that relationship to, like Lillian said, soften the blow a little bit, or act as a buffer while also sanding yourself down and saying, “I'm here too and this is what we need and if you want to be part of us, then this is where we go.” I think that would be one way.
And then, what does some of that on the ground stuff look like? Maybe it's more mini grants instead of funding programming. Maybe funders actually just move money to grassroots organizations directly in smaller amounts, so what happens can come directly from them. That’s one thought.
[CO] Another thought Alex just triggered for me is participatory structuring of programs to keep that constant feedback loop with folks you're trying to serve. Is this program really serving you? How can we make it better? What do you actually need? What can we, as this middleman, do to help your work move forward? Keeping that feedback going, taking that input and actually changing programs, if necessary is another way we can be flexible.
[LS] I think that that would absolutely be the ideal. It's difficult. I think, and this gets down to where money comes from, if the money is coming from funders and you try to put the pressure on them and they pull the money, then you're out of luck. That's the precarity of dealing with foundations and philanthropists who are not part of the community, which is pretty common. If they are of the community, they're so far removed from people on the ground that it's difficult. Something that I've been thinking about is how can we do more grassroots fundraising and try to move away from the foundations and whatnot. Or, as middlemen, do we put our foot down and hope that the pressure's enough and we still get to keep the funding? Rebecca, do you have any thoughts on that as someone who deals with corporations and the bigger money?
[RC] I mean, it's an interesting line that I tow on the daily fundraising from corporations. I'll start by saying what's so interesting in my world is that I think sometimes we forget that the individual who has a lot of money, and who gives, probably made that money from the company we're also fundraising from. They might also have the ability to start a foundation, right? So, it's all interconnected to start. I think the struggle, in my opinion, has to do with trust-based philanthropy and how that gets incorporated. I think oftentimes what shapes priorities for funders is measurable degrees of impact. So, widely supported forms of giving are driven by metrics and by analytics and all these things that, on the outside, probably feel like they make sense, but what we find is it feels like funders treat the gift like a stock investment or a business venture. It's essentially saying that the funder knows how to direct the resources best and it inherently starts the partnership off by saying the organization does not. I think if there was a collective push towards that idea, and a collective acceptance of trust-based philanthropy, which is one model that essentially says, “Here are the resources and I'm going to step aside because I trust that you know what's best for your community,” I think it would drive all the points home of what trust-based philanthropy would do to shift priorities to long-term unrestricted giving. It's about the process. It's not about the end result. It's not about the differing priorities per se. It becomes about, and this sounds very idealistic, solving the challenges of societal problems and less about everything else. That also flies in the face of me saying we have to scale this. How do you get from here to there? But you can still have an idea of where you would like that scale to go, right?
I also don't always look at a nonprofit organization as the middleman. I think organizations can also--right now, because of this reckoning of 2020--a lot of organizations have come under scrutiny, highlighting all these inequities. I actually do believe that the heart of a nonprofit organization was always meant to support the grassroots. Organizations now might feel like middlemen, but I don't think it goes funder, organization, grassroots. I think that the grassroots and organizations are actually intertwined. Both look at a funder saying, “Hey, my org’s ethos and values too might be looked at conversely to yours.” So, I think it's a bit more fluid. Certainly one could make the case that there are a lot of orgs that sort of just process money in and process money out, but I go back to an organization, a true nonprofit organization with a mission statement, values, some sort of a grassroots zeal, that those two are very much intertwined and and both on the same side of looking at how you can have ethical fundraising, or how you can work with a funder when your values clearly don't align.
Lastly, I think it's also, at the moment, two sides of the same point. You can have a partnership with a corporation, for example, where you've not compromised anything and, in fact, both objectives have been met. You're left with more resources and you've made a greater impact. But, I think the other conversation is, what was the compromise when you engaged in the relationship with the company? That's the part that we have to do right. How do you have that conversation? Those are the two strands of thought there. I feel like I went around the world.
[AO] No, that was good. One thing it made me think about was grassroots and organizations and how I agree with what you're saying. That relationship is fluid. So, I started to think, well what is the difference between them? Why do we have two words for them? What's the difference between grassroots and a nonprofit organization? When I think of grassroots, I think we spend all of our time doing our mission. When I think of nonprofits, I think about how much their work has become raising money. So, to me, it seems like nonprofits closer to the grassroots maybe work on very little money and spend most of their time doing the work. Then, closer to that middleman position, is a nonprofit that mostly raises and moves money and does little work. Thinking about the difference between charity and solidarity, in my mind, the closer you are to doing the work, the more in solidarity you are with whoever else is involved in the work. Maybe the more that managing money is focused, the less solidarity there is. So, maybe part of the phasing is merging those back together. I wasn't trying to get to a certain point. Just something that I was thinking about while you were talking.
[CO] That goes back to the prompt about trust-based philanthropy. When I was thinking about it, I was frustrated with the term, that we even need the term, “trust-based philanthropy,” in the first place. That's what it should be all the time. Why do we need a separate term for it? Why isn't that the bare minimum for funders in the first place? I'm glad that it exists but it’s frustrating to me that we're not already practicing it now. I'm forgetting where I was going with this. Oh, the principles of trust-based philanthropy involve lessening that burden on organizations so they can focus more on what you were talking about, Alex. It allows them to focus more on the work and reduce the proportion of time they spend on fundraising. A larger proportion can be spent on the work. I hope funders are adopting those principles and saying and streamlining applications for funding. Can we just have a simple conversation if we've been working together for a couple years? Why do I have to apply every year? All these things reduce that burden on the organization so they can focus on what they're supposed to be doing.
[AO] Caitlin, I was thinking about what you said before with very donor-centric celebrations and how that leans more towards charity. What keeps coming up is that the more we focus on money, the more we focus on the resource and the transfer of the resource, the more it feels charity. The less we focus on the resource and instead on how we are using it, the more it seems like we're moving toward solidarity.
[LS] We’re about 45 minutes in. I do want to take a moment and let people type in any questions that they might have, or even unmute themselves and ask. I'll give people a minute.
[CO] Lillie, while we're waiting, can I ask Rebecca a question?
[LS] Absolutely.
[CO] I'm curious, Rebecca, because you mentioned the hesitation of even entering into a relationship with a corporation in the first place, I'm curious how you approach that. What questions or criteria are you looking at? What questions do you ask yourself before you agree to enter into a relationship?
[RC] I think working in corporate fundraising is incredibly nuanced. I'm sure we can say that about a lot of areas of fundraising, but it's nuanced in the sense that you're not necessarily dealing with or interacting with a member or an individual patron or even a foundation who has historically loved that institution. You're, a lot of the time, working with people who have fleeting or passing interests. I think the constant for me is, a lot of the time, fundraisers will go into meeting with corporate already in that “have, have-not” mode. “It's a massive company; I don't want to say the wrong thing; I don't want to jeopardize the money; I'm a little wary of even being in the room.”
My approach is very much the opposite. Maybe this is just me, but I think at times organizations forget their own leverage. I think sometimes we give up too quickly. So, I enter a lot of these corporate spaces being very firm in the values of the institution, in the ethos, in the programming, in the outreach. A strategic partnership in the corporate world is as simple as two entities with objectives who want to leverage each other's assets, and in the case of philanthropy, to impact the greater good. I have seen, and conceived of, partnerships where a partner has provided resources and stepped away because they go in already trusting what it is that you're capable of doing. It doesn't happen all the time, but absolutely there can be a model where you leave a room being like, “Oh, I actually compromised nothing.” It goes back to my previous point. You can then have the conversation about whether you compromised by even entering into that right into that partnership in the first place. It's just two lines of questions.
Just sort of sum up, I take a very simple approach. I always go in with the institution in mind and I'll get even more personal. I go in as a Black fundraiser. When we think about the authenticity of these funders, some of the onus falls on the fundee. There has to be equity all around to champion equity. So, if that's not your priority, you're not going to go to a funder with that priority. Obviously, I'm not going in saying these are my priorities. I represent the institution. But my lens is always an equity lens because I'm a Black woman. I go in knowing what our values are and knowing that the goal is to not compromise anything, but move forward together.
[CO] That's great. Thank you for answering that surprise pop question.
[LS] I'm not seeing any questions in the chat. I'm just going to go ahead and continue with one I was originally going to ask all the way at the end, but I'm going to go for it. How can philanthropic entities and the cultural sector actually work together? I want to take this question a little further and ask how specifically, what three things can someone who's listening to this do? They can be small. They can be big. They can be reading a book. What are a few actionable steps that can help transition toward a solidarity economy and away from a charity mindset?
[AO] Maybe fund something you wouldn't normally fund just to see what that feels like. (Yeah, that's my cat). That would be a good, concrete first step and would show a commitment to doing things differently.
[CO] I like that a lot. I was thinking about how funders traditionally make funding decisions. How can those processes be flipped on their heads? What if they brought in folks from the community to help make decisions, folks who self-identify with whatever community they're trying to serve? Have them help you direct where money is going.
[LS] I would agree with that. I think that there's trying to fund something new, but also funding a completely different type of giving. I think people are very comfortable giving to a donor advised fund. What about giving to a grassroots movement, without the expectation of accorded prestige, instead? I think that until people shift from that prestige mindset, it's very hard to move towards solidarity and away from charity.
[RC] I agree with all of these points. I think it's about the funder understanding that they're a part of something greater than themselves or their wealth. I think it goes back to that idea of stepping aside. I say that a lot because that's something that, from a racial standpoint, is actually said a lot. We're talking about economies here, but if you look to the model of race, which is really the basis for all of this, it's really about stepping aside. To be frank, the phrase “Believe Black Women” is not just a phrase. It's not a tag. It's as literal as it is metaphorical. So, the case to give to Black-led orgs, for example, arguably happened when slavery started, right? The minute you acknowledge history, the minute you acknowledge yourself, your wealth, your place in that, it's easier to start thinking about power; start thinking about resources; start thinking about what it means to give that up. The language that we use when it comes to racial inequality, it's the same concept. It goes back to constantly scrutinizing the intersection of race and wealth, which is clearly a lot to ask given how much movement we’ve seen, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that of a funder.
So, it's not so much about having a concrete step. I just think it's food for thought, something to think about. I think the step that comes from that will be informed by mulling that over and thinking about that. Then steps will be driven by that.
[LS] I think a step that could come from that is, whether it's class-based or race-based, framing actions in relation to power. Like you said, I think a lot of it comes down to power and people use different words to replace that because they feel uncomfortable with the idea that their position in the world, just by default with how history is played out, has more power. Confronting that is an important step. So, the next time someone steps into the room, you can frame it less in terms of, “I am the fundee and that is a funder,” and start thinking about how history has positioned people in power.
[RC] Agreed on that. And I appreciate the fact that, while these points are driven towards funders, you're right in the sense that we can also shape the room. A funder might not have that perspective. I think we can also shape the perspective, to your point, even by entering the room. It goes back to Caitlin's question about how I enter rooms in corporate situations. How am I framing this? Am I playing into and being complicit in this dynamic by already going and cowering because I’m the “have not,” or I represent the “have not,” or I represent that community. So, agreed in terms of what are we doing and how are we looking at ourselves first and not being complicit.
[LS] I think that I am going to open up the room to any last thoughts, if there's anything that you really didn't feel like you got to expand on, or you wanted to share a little bit more about, the floor is open.
Oh, actually I do see one question that popped up in the Q&A. Someone asked:
“In some sense it is in these companies’ best interest to support social movements like Black Lives Matter and pledge some money because it gives them a seat in the conversation and allows them to steer it um away from potentially more radical demands that threaten the established order. How can we balance a need for resources with the necessity of not letting these demands get watered down and co-opted?”
That is a big question.
[RC] That's a really big question and I'm not gonna attempt to fully delve into that, but it's a great question. What I will say is, I think that absolutely does exist. I think it's certainly safe to say that is a very valid point. It's that caution again, right? I constantly wonder, going back to authenticity, am I silly for even asking if there is authenticity behind this? Or is there a long-term commitment? Am I not even requesting that given the long and deep history of wealth? A company can mean well and there's still that fear of, are you actually trying to shift the conversation by owning a massive stake in it. I believe in the courage of one's convictions. I believe in always scrutinizing.
I think the answer to your question is, don't ever let up. Don't ever believe that that is the case. I think it's up to you how you proceed. Everybody has a different pathway. Some people are like, “I don't even want to touch that or enter that space. I'm gonna find the funds in other ways.” Some people are really great at saying, “You know what? I am going to take this. I don't know what your intentions are, but I can absolutely place this back into the community that I'm still protecting at all costs.” I think that goes back to, where do we start when it comes to structural inequity. Where do we even begin? It's a great question in the sense that it will be an ongoing question. It's just always remaining cautious and constantly taking stock of, “Am I deferring back to my values?” I think it's easy to get swept up into power, especially if you’ve been disenfranchised. It is very easy to chase that. Again, I can't fully tackle that but I fully understand where you're coming from and I think it's such a step-by-step thing.
[LS] Alex or Caitlin, do you have anything you'd like to add?
[AO] That conversation made me think about, and this was asked earlier, what that first step is that changes everything. What's the first domino or the seed that changes philanthropic giving from here forward? Rebecca kind of said this, but I don't think that it's going to just be one seed. I think it is going to be kind of chaotic and, at some points, it'll work really well. At other points, it won't. Everybody's role is different. Those who have more power have a harder role because they have to give some of that up. Maybe that's not harder. I don't want to say it's harder, but they have to change a lot from where they're at now. Those of us working in the nonprofit sector, we need to always be checking ourselves to act in solidarity when we take steps that are more towards charity or the flattery of the funder. Those of us working on the grassroots side need to, like Rebecca was saying, walk into a room knowing where you stand.
[CO] My only thing the only thought to add would be, on the fundraising side, there's checking ourselves, like you just said, Alex. We have to check ourselves and also think about our values. It's hard, but we can also say no to taking money. If you see someone doesn't align with what you're trying to do, don't accept that money. And that's really hard to say. I mean, that's coming from a privileged position, obviously, but that's also an option. Then it signals to other funders that we need to make shifts and actually be in alignment with with these values.
[RC] This question really just scratches hard at the structure of nonprofit. Not to continue to say the same thing, but the ultimate problem is that we have to rely on certain funders whether they be corporate, whether it be a foundation, whether it just be a really rich person. Unfortunately, when you work in a non-profit, you don't start the year like a corporation in the “black;” you start in the “red.” They way nonprofits are structured, you're constantly chasing money so, in some respects, nonprofit can feel very corporate. The whole structure has to be rethought, and I know that's what this whole talk was centered around, but it does dovetail well. It's not so much how do you know which companies are authentic, it's how do we figure out a structure by which that is not the pool of funding all the money has to come from in order to make impact. So, again it goes back to imagining and also trying to figure out how you manage that in the moment.
[LS] I think that that is a wonderful place to end. If you have any last thoughts, speak now or forever hold. I want to thank you all so much for coming and everyone for watching and Amplify Arts for having us, as per usual. This will be up later on the blog, so keep an eye out for that and I guess I will say goodnight.
*This transcript has been edited for clarity.
About the Panelists:
Rebecca Carew is the Director of Strategic Partnerships & Corporate Relations at the New York Public Library (NYPL). With over 15 years of experience in the field of cultural nonprofit development, Ms. Carew has worked in nonprofit communications, membership acquisition and engagement, fundraising, and in the conceptualization and management of strategic partnerships at a variety of arts, research, and historical institutions including Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM) and the Levine Museum of the New South.
Throughout her career, Ms. Carew has amassed a broad portfolio of integrated collaborations—building bases of support for nonprofit institutions, local communities, and the wider cultural ecosystem. In addition, Ms. Carew has consulted a variety of arts and culture institutions on communication, fundraising, and small business engagement practices, with the objective of developing effective and impactful strategies in New York City and beyond; and, remains actively engaged in the ever-evolving dialogue on the relationship between the arts and corporate funding. Her devoted tenure in the arts and culture sector allows Ms. Carew to fulfill a lifelong passion for art and philanthropy in service of her unwavering belief that art is a major catalyst for social change. Ms. Carew graduated from Appalachian State University, where she majored in Cultural Anthropology. She currently resides in Brooklyn, NY.
Alex O’Hanlon a community leader and neighborhood organizer who is committed to supporting resident-led projects that enhance their quality of life. She’s worked as a Garden Manager for City Sprouts South where she coordinated programs, workshops, and events. Currently she works as Engagement Coordinator at One Omaha. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy/History from UNO and travels to California every fall to harvest olives.
Caitlin Osborn (she/her) is the Deputy Director at Amplify Arts where she does a little bit of everything. After graduating from UNO with a B.A. in History, Caitlin pursued a Masters degree in Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, focusing on Nonprofit Management. Caitlin returned to Omaha and joined Amplify Arts in 2016, and since then has developed and implemented strategy in fundraising, communications, and programs. She is continuously inspired by the arts community here in the metro and believes in its infinite potential.
About the Moderator:
Lillian Snortland, originally from Eugene, Oregon, is a self-taught writer of fiction, poetry, and essays. She has explored themes of fantasy, surrealism, and the imaginative feminine from a young age. At Carleton College, she studied storytelling and material culture of the past—Classical Studies, French literature and media, and art history, and continues to play with a multidisciplinary perspective in her analysis today. She currently works in the nonprofit arts sector to provide opportunities of capacity-building and cultural capital to those in need. Lillian was recently accepted into the Virtual Collaborative Program for Emerging Artists, hosted by Exit 11 Performing Arts Company and Postscript Magazine. Further writing can be found at https://chaimihai.wordpress.com/.