Breaking through Boundaries: Fiscal Sponsors & Equity in Fundraising
A “Reimagining the Sector” Conversation Reflection
On September 17 we held our first “Reimagining the Sector” conversation with a group of our members concerning the topic of equity, diversity, and inclusion in fiscal sponsorship practice. The previous post of September 16 was shared as a provocation prior to the convening.
The subject is all-encompassing and complex, infusing all aspects of our work and conversation today. And since inequity pervades the nonprofit sector at the systems level, it resists reduction to a set of tasks or tools. There is no checklist. However, within the narrow scope of fiscal sponsorship, we can gather and share patterns of practice (frameworks) and questions which can guide equity-based thinking and decision making for fiscal sponsors.
Our conversation about equity on the 17th quickly turned to fundraising and overall resource development for projects, as fiscal sponsors have stepped up during the pandemic to be more involved in active fundraising with and for their projects. For example, Local Color discussed targeted fundraising support with their artist partners, and Seattle Parks Foundation shared successes they have had with cohort-based fundraising among projects, in particular those with less capacity to do this work themselves. Though not in attendance on the call, we had heard the day before from Rainier Valley Corps (RVC) that their projects are thriving despite the pandemic, in large part because of direct fundraising work RVC has been undertaking with their constituents. RVC has been leaning into active fundraising with their projects, well beyond their own direct fundraising efforts as a sponsor. And this is one of the ways in which they actively foster greater equity of opportunity and access for their community.
Fiscal sponsors generally draw a clear line when it comes to fundraising for their projects: it’s the projects’ responsibility to generate resources (engage in prospecting and cultivation and being the “face” of the ask”), with the back-office, administrative support of the sponsor. To act otherwise--to step from behind the curtain and prospect or cultivate relationships for particular projects or to sit across the table from the funder during the pitch--is to step over a line in which the sponsor starts to “become” the project. In that moment, a fiscal sponsor starts to “own” key resource relations as opposed to serving as a connector or capacity builder.
This is about where critical relationships are built and held. Fiscal sponsors try to remain behind the curtain with the projects out front. The boundary can get fuzzy at times, but is generally pretty clear. Relationships with funders, donors, clients, beneficiaries, and other key project stakeholders are held by the project. The sponsor provides guidance and assurance that basic management and compliance processes are being well executed. At least that’s convention.
Three reasons for this convention stand out. First, sponsors want to honor the sense of autonomy in purpose, vision, and constituent relationships that projects demand. This means keeping out of key decisions and relationships. Second, sponsors need to be careful about their own capacity. In “becoming” the project, it’s easy to get sucked into a vortex of work well beyond the core responsibilities of a fiscal sponsor. This might jeopardize the health of the sponsor or create friction among projects that think they are receiving less attention. Third--and perhaps most cited--is the matter of equal treatment for all projects. Many (not all) sponsors try to maintain an equal standard of treatment of all projects, though in proportion to size and operating demands. Making sure that there are no “favored children” helps ensure stability and a sense of fair treatment within the community of projects. This is accomplished, for example, through maintaining fixed cost allocations (fee rates), such as a 10% base cost allocation for all Model A supports; or policies that may be uniformly applied to all projects, regardless of age or size.
But equality and equity are wholly different ideas. Equal means equal--the same portion given to each constituent. Equity is actually the opposite; it often entails unequal action or apportionment. It means giving some projects more support than others (not equal amounts) in order to lift them up to a level of capacity enjoyed by projects that may enjoy greater privileges, such as better-connected leadership. This idea is famously captured by the image below which was first developed by Interaction Institute for Social Change with the help of the artist, Angus Maguire. It also likely means that in the face of limited capacity, fiscal sponsors today might accept a project by and for a BIPOC community to the exclusion of another project that is white-led, regardless of the good intent or worthiness of the latter’s mission and purpose.
Image created by Angus Maguire for the Interaction Institute for Social Change
With the tremendous battle for racial and economic equity in our country, it’s certainly time to break barriers and conventions. To advance equity in our work as fiscal sponsors, we need to consider how our support should be allocated to leaders and projects that, for example: do not have funds (or access to funds) when then show up at our door; do not conform to received (white) notions of impact, excellence, professionalism, etc.; or may not hold traditional “business” or “management” practices as key to their success.
Below is an initial (not comprehensive) set of self-assessment questions and incitements that center equity and begin to chart a path toward great diversity and inclusion for fiscal sponsors.
Equity
Do new projects have to have a certain amount of funding, experience and a fully developed model day one, or do we provide space to test assumptions, explore new solutions, and learn?
Are we open to management practices and approaches to support, impact, and change that challenge largely white, established norms and standards?
Do we actively and intentionally allocate more of our resources as a fiscal sponsor to BIPOC-led projects over white-led projects?
Access
Are we developing our internal staff and board, both in diversity and skill set/awareness to reflect and be welcoming to BIPOC leaders and innovators?
Do we actively assess our intake and management processes, program offerings, pricing, tools, and other resources to ensure the broadest access while ensuring the vitality of our community?
Do we communicate, externally and internally, in ways that are culturally sensitive and accommodate diverse languages, cultures, and learning/cognitive processes?
Authority
How do we foster a greater sense of intentional community and social cohesion among projects, sharing values with constituent program leaders and the people we serve?
To what degree is project leadership involved in or even leading intake/spin out decisions, as well as active and empowered participation in policy making/governance?
How do we manage shared risks (legal, financial, social), knowing that we need to support projects that must engage in extraordinary risk to further social justice?
Attunement
Do we embrace empathy and sympathy in our orientation to our projects and orient our team and projects in trauma-informed and culturally attuned practices?
Is communication and “rapid candor” (opportunities for regular, frank feedback) welcome among our team members and in our relationships with our projects?
Are communication opportunities regularly offered in both formal and informal ways, and how do we show up when things go wrong: corrective/punitive or restorative?
Again, the above is not a definitive or comprehensive list of questions. But these are questions we have encountered, thankfully, with greater frequency in our field. We welcome additional points and provocations in the comments below, or feel free to contact us otherwise.