Navigating Economic Diversity in the Nonprofit World

Trustee rosters at major grant makers sorely lack socioeconomic and geographic diversity, a Chronicle analysis shows. What does that mean for philanthropy?

At the 20 wealthiest national foundations, which control $162 billion in assets, plenty of board members have degrees from top private universities, but only a handful live in rural or poor parts of the United States.

With urban-rural tensions rising, regional spinoffs of Minneapolis’s McKnight Foundation offer a model for partnership between the big city and small towns.

Increasingly stocked with well-paid, well-educated leaders and staffs, the nonprofit world risks disconnecting with middle- and working-class Americans.

These organizations are rethinking hiring, salary, and even internships to add people of modest means to their ranks.

Raised in poverty, Rodney Christopher now makes decisions on granting and investing millions. He says much of the philanthropic world places little value on his life experience.

Foundations won’t survive the Trump era if they act like they have all the answers, the Hudson Institute’s William Schambra writes, but Amir Pasic of the Lilly School says philanthropy’s support of varied institutions and communities promotes pluralism and checks autocracy.

Experts shine a light on subtle ways prejudice creeps into hiring and offer advice on attracting a more diverse pool of candidates.

Americans for the Arts used a model document that spoke with authority without being rigid: the U.S. Constitution.

While parts of the foundation world have grown more diverse, the top leadership and program-officer jobs don’t yet reflect the diversity of America, says a report released Sunday.