On November 4, we held a webinar called Impact Giving for Women and Girls of Color, a first-of-its-kind online forum to discuss where funding is headed for this population, featuring three expert speakers on the topic: NoVo Executive Director Pamela Shifman, Scholar C. Nicole Mason, and Southern Black Rural Women’s Initiative leader Oleta Fitzgerald.It was an amazing experience. I received several emails from attendees in the afterhours, wanting to discuss the future of this movement and looking for ways to guide and coordinate efforts.
Question: If funding to support boys and men of color is a priority, with some two dozen foundations involved, why are women and girls of color not an equal priority?The fact is that few new philanthropic efforts are aimed specifically at improving the lives of girls and young women of color.
A small program attached to an equally small liberal arts college has been providing thought leadership and a legion of boots on the ground for reproductive justice since the 1980s. Where do they get their money, and how has this operation been sustainable?The Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program (CLPP) at Hampshire College was founded in 1981, and since that time, it has helped to fuel both movement-building leadership and activist strategy for the cause of reproductive justice. Marlene Gerber Fried, Faculty Director of CLPP and Professor of Philosophy, and Mia Sullivan, Director of CLPP, took some time to discuss their work with Inside Philanthropy recently, so we could learn more about how this organization was formed and stays funded.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation has real-life origins that explain its deeply child-focused approach. Jim Casey, who made his fortune starting UPS, named the foundation for his mother, Annie E. Casey, a single parent who struggled to raise him and his three siblings.
For decades, Casey has been one of the largest philanthropic grant makers in the area of youth services. Among its specific ventures: a child welfare strategy arm that consults on local reform initiatives, and the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, a long-running effort to help states lower reliance on pre-trial juvenile detention.
We started a bold experiment recently in our house: paying our children interest on their savings accounts at the astronomical rate of 3% a week.
Why would any parent want to do such a thing? My argument is that it was the best way to teach our children about what should happen to money when you save it. I also saw it as a good opportunity to build their skills for evaluating how to spend accumulating cash.
It all started when my Paypal began to show signs of life, thanks to the freelance world of writing. Soon my account had grown enough that I began to wonder how I could put this new stream of income to good use.
I talked to the hubby who agreed that more money management skills would be beneficial for our two daughters, ages 9 and 15. But he had reservations about the 3% a week plan. “That’s an exorbitant interest rate to be paying,” he said. “They’re never going to get that again anywhere.”
I wasn’t too worried about that. We had never paid our children an allowance, and the amount that they would be earning with 3% on their Paypal balances would be what some kids get in allowance. I liked the idea of speeding up the process of money accumulation for them with interest, as a powerful lesson about the value of saving.
It was a lesson I remember distinctly from my own childhood: Going to the Savings Bank of Manchester branch in my hometown of Bolton, Connecticut, and handing in my passbook along with a deposit of money, and getting another small amount of money for free (back then, a regular savings account was paying about 3% annually). Even as a 9 or 10 year old, the math wheels in my head were churning, thinking of how much money I could make in that free money, if only I had more in my account. There was only one answer: save more money.
I want my daughters to incorporate a similar lesson into their lives, but unfortunately, there are no banks that pay 3% interest on savings at this time. So I decided to open the Bank of Mom.
The rules were thus: interest at a rate of 3% would be paid on daughters’ weekly Paypal balance. Application for interest needed to be submitted in the form of an invoice on the weekend.
At first, my older daughter seemed not to care. I chalk this up to her having too cushy of a life that she does not think of money enough. My bad. Also, she’s 15 and makes her own money in theater and babysitting, so doesn’t really need to depend on Mom’s wild ideas for income.
My younger daughter was much more on task with requesting and receiving her earnings, and was enjoying the way her $212.50 had ballooned to $225.43 in a mere two weeks, when older daughter caught on that this was a free ride she couldn’t turn down.
Younger daughter began submitting her invoices religiously, but older daughter would require reminders (which I reminded her were not part of the Standard Operating Procedure) and even with reminders, she did not start submitting on time until I put a deadline on the window for when submissions would be received (Saturday, 9 am to Sunday 9 pm.).
Everyone was on board with this plan for a few months, and I watched my meager earnings as a writer dwindle down in weekly payments of $12 and $15 and then $14 and $17 a week. The daughters began to accumulate. Their account balances surpassed mine.
The younger daughter seemed to learn some important lessons. “Camp costs $375 a week!” she exclaimed at one point, “That’s almost all of the money in my account.” Gets you thinking, doesn’t it?
The summer came and requests for weekly payments of interest slowed down. I wasn’t going to remind anyone, because my account balance needed to regain some steam.
“I think maybe we should do once a month for interest,” I told my savers. “The Bank of Mom is a little low.”
“Really?” said younger daughter. “We don’t have enough money?”
“Well, you know how much I make as a writer,” I reminded them.
“That’s fine, let’s go to once a month,” said younger daughter, who we decided to give all decision-making power in this instance. “You need it more than I do.”
As the economy continues to recover and social movements directed at addressing inequality continue to gain steam, one field of philanthropy that is in ascent is asset building, which helps low income people build up savings to expand their economic opportunity.
For children, one feature of the asset-building strategy is child savings accounts, with the goal of getting more children to start saving and building a nest egg for the future.
Scholars like Benjamin Friedman have demonstrated that economic growth helps drive any number of positive trends: improved human rights, better health, women’s empowerment, higher education attainment, and on and on.
Historically, though, explicit efforts to foster growth haven’t been all that high on the agenda of a philanthropic world that cares about all the things I just mentioned. In particular, funders haven’t tended to do a lot in the way of supporting entrepreneurs, whose new businesses create many of the new jobs that propel growth. Meanwhile, small business has been on the decline in the U.S. for the last decade, a trend that was greatly accelerated by the Great Recession, with new business creation plunging by 30 percent in the wake of the economic crash.