Seiji Carpenter [Starting at 03:34]: Thank you all very much for joining. I’m going to tell you a little bit about us and the Social Justice Giving Circle Project, and then spend most of our time here today sharing some research that we have done. And as Kelsey mentioned, by trade, I do public opinion research, so that is survey research as well as different types of qualitative research, focus groups, in depth interviews, ethnography, that type of thing.

I am also a member of a giving circle, so it’s an exciting meeting of these two worlds for me that we got to do some research on issues related to giving circles that I care quite a bit about. So after we go through the research and some of its implications, we’ll open it up for Q&A. I’m hoping to allow a good chunk of time for Q&A at the end.

So, quickly on who we are. So four of us, Joelle Berman, Mario Lugay, LiJia Gong, and myself, who have been  working together, formally started in 2020 this project called the Social Justice Giving Circle Project.

Really, we were looking for a way for some of us who had backgrounds in social justice movements and were new to the world of giving circles and philanthropy. And then Mario and Joelle had a little bit more experience in philanthropy, in trying to understand what it would mean for a giving circle to live up to social justice values.

We started this project to support giving circles and their members and individuals to try to  connect more deeply with movements. We’ve conducted two phases of research now. In 2021 we did research with giving circles themselves, and then in 2022 we did research with folks in social justice movements.

Then the next phase, which Kelsey is helping us with, is taking the results of the research, developing it into a curriculum, and then running a pilot project for a group of folks to benefit more directly from that research. But today I’m going to spend time sharing that research with you.

We’re trying to talk about some of the things that we learned. Starting with phase one, the  animating question for us here was, “How do giving circle members engage social justice movements?” I think for a lot of us who had been in movements and were new to the philanthropy space, the question that was animating this research is, “How are giving circles approaching social justice movements?”

What does it mean to be a social justice giving circle? What are we doing as social justice giving circles? What do we wish we were doing that we don’t know how to do? And so we explored a number of those questions. I’m just going to share a couple of the key insights from that.

I think Kelsey can share a little bit more of the information there, and then if folks have specific questions, happy to touch on it in the Q&A. But the key takeaways: there are two kinds of facts that I’m going to share. One is that when we did this survey, 95% of folks said that they would describe their giving circle as a social justice giving circle, at least slightly.

Well, these are the folks who think of their giving circles as living up to social justice values, but only 15% said they had heard quite a bit about social justice best practices. So operating in this space where folks are interested in social justice and trying to align themselves with those values, but just not hearing a lot about what that means in the social justice space, or in the giving circle space, rather.

One of the other things that we did is that we asked about a bunch of different types of practices that giving circles can do. And we asked both, like, how often do you do these things, and how interested are you? And what we were looking for are the [places] where there was a lot of interest and not a lot of practice.

The number one thing, the biggest gap that we saw, of the things that we tested was building relationships with social justice leaders. 63% of those we talked to said they were interested in that. Only 22% said that they do it consistently. So that was one of the things that informed our Wave Two as we approached that was this desire to build these relationships to engage more deeply and directly.

And we wanted to understand as we went into the next phase, what that meant from the movement side. But our key learning here, coming out of the first phase of research, was just giving circle members and people who care about social justice, especially those who align themselves with these social justice giving circles, they’re often connected to the world of social justice.

But when it comes to giving circles, they just don’t feel like they are experts. To put it in another way, they have a clear idea about what it means to live up to social justice values as a voter. Or as a consumer or as a citizen, but as a giving circle member or as a donor, it raises new questions that they don’t have as much information or expertise on.

I should say this was conducted in 2021. I think that there’s been a lot of development, especially some of the stuff that you all have been a part of and that Philanthropy Together has been working on that hopefully has better equipped folks with some of these tools.

But that’s the space that we were interested in exploring. I will say that, in addition to being a member of this project and a researcher, I am a member of a giving circle. It’s called RADFund. You can see our little tagline there. [“Giving to folks in NYC organizing to protect frontline communities and to challenge structural inequality.”] I share this not to say that I have all the answers about what it means to be a social justice giving circle, but quite the opposite. To say that we have grappled with a lot of these questions and I understand very personally how difficult and complicated and nuanced they are. What I’m going to be sharing is the result of research and its implications in the abstract.

But I’m very cognizant that in real life, when that is put into practice, it often leaves challenging dilemmas where it feels like there’s two different options that are living up to social justice values in different ways. I’m happy to talk more about that in the Q&A if folks are interested.

Okay. Getting into the meat of the research, this is phase two. How do social justice movements want to be engaged? So our operating question going into this is, okay, giving circles have this interest in being more connected to social justice movements and having stronger relationships with the leaders. But what do the movements want? What is helpful to them? Is it valuable to have folks who are approaching them and engaging them?

I think a lot of us had heard some anecdotal stories, especially after the election of Trump, of a huge influx of volunteers in some organizations, especially in movement spaces, being  overwhelmed by folks who wanted to help but didn’t necessarily have the tools. And sometimes it felt like it could be too much. So we wanted to go into this research with an open mind, and understand. Is it helpful? Is there a path to engagement here?

A bit about our methodology here, just briefly. This research was conducted in March to May of [2022]. And we wanted to talk to people who work or have worked in social justice movements and we focused, in particular, on folks who had some engagement with people outside of movements. So we were looking at the people who had a sense of what it could be like to engage with folks who were not full-time working in social justice movements.

Obviously, like a lot of the terms that I’m using, social justice movements are subject to different definitions. So we really relied on participants’ own definitions, for the most part, in describing themselves and their work.

A couple things about qualitative research, just for folks who may not have a lot of exposure or experience with it: It’s a snapshot in time. So these are conversations that took place in spring of [2022]. I’m going to share the attitudes and ideas that were expressed in that research. If we do our job in five years, ten years, the attitudes that people have will have shifted. So this isn’t to say that these are inevitable attitudes, but just where folks are at today.

The participation in the research was confidential, so, I’m not going to share any of the names or identifying information about the participants. But suffice it to say that they were a really diverse set. We found folks from a diverse set of backgrounds, both geographically and demographically, as well as occupationally.

So looking from folks from all different parts of the movement, Kelsey helped an enormous amount with that piece as well. We were able to get a lot of different voices included. And that means that the results are not a monolith. I mean, you’re going to hear me talk about what the research said, but largely this is talking about themes that came up, things that we heard again and again, [but it] does not mean that everybody in the social justice movement holds a particular idea or belief.

This is Phase 2 of the research. We further broke it down into Wave 1 and Wave 2. Just to take you a little bit through our process, so you can understand how we got where we were going, the first wave was exploratory interviews, and this was really just giving folks in movements an opportunity to talk about their needs and wants. What are they looking for when they think about kinds of folks outside of movements, engaging with them? What is helpful, what is not helpful, and then in particular, with some context about what giving circles are, how can they be of service? How can they be helpful?

And then, out of those conversations, we came up with a couple of different models, a couple different ideas of some of the themes that folks were articulating about how giving circles could be helpful.

And then in Wave 2, we conducted research with groups of people where we stress tested those ideas, where we had a conversation about particular models, and talked about what the benefits and limitations of each and which were most promising. And, how they could best be executed.

So the threshold question that we began with was, “Do social justice movements want to be engaged by people who are not working for those movements?” And the overwhelming answer–in a lot of what we did, there was a diversity of opinions; this was a question where  there really was unanimity–is that there was a strong, strong desire for engagement.

Folks again and again, were telling us how they wanted more people to be involved, how they needed more people to be involved. I’m going to share some of them. These are some of the verbatims of what folks said in their own words. I’m mostly not going to read these verbatim, these quotes as I share them, but we’ll just put them on the screen so you can get a sense of how the participants talked about some of their own answers.

There was a very strong sense that, at all costs, whatever the implementation, that we need more people, that movements are built on people. And that more people means growth means mass movements means change. And that’s our path to reaching the social justice goals that we strive for.

There definitely were concerns. I don’t want to minimize those concerns. There certainly were some ideas and reservations expressed, but nobody expressed their reservations to the point that further engagement was not worth pursuing.

Okay, so if we pass the threshold question then our driving question was, “How should giving circles approach this? How should giving circles engage social justice movements?” I’m going to break this down into a few guiding questions, and we’ll talk through each of these and then we’ll move into Q&A.

So, how is the fit? How are we willing to show up, we as giving circles? And how are we willing to learn and how are we willing to give up power?

So first, the fit: how is the fit of your giving circle, of your collective? How are you a part of the social justice movement, a movement organization, a particular group? And this really broke into these two groups. So finding groups that fit you and finding the members that fit the groups. Finding groups that fit you does not necessarily mean finding groups that reflect the demographics or racial groups of your members, although that certainly can be part of it. But really finding organizations that want to engage, that have the interest and the capacity to engage.

That could be a group that has members that look like you. It could be a group that does not.  But as with all of these things, we’ll say again and again that when we get guidance and ideas from these movement organizations, it’s really valuable input. And when folks say that they want to engage, those are boundaries that we really want to respect.

The other side of finding groups that fit you is finding the members that fit groups. So if it’s an organization that is mostly Spanish-speaking home care workers, and you have one or two members who are Spanish-speaking, those probably are good members to start to build those relationships.

So thinking about who within the group is the best fit, but also which groups are most open and interested in building those relationships. Here’s some of the verbatim that we’re talking about,   talking in their own words about these ideas.

You can see this phrase “show up.” That is the language that a lot of the folks in the movement use again and again. “How do people show up? We need them to show up this way.” I’m going to  use it to the point of making it trite, but it is a phrase that comes up again and again.

All right, the second animating question, how are we willing to show up? So this was the biggest, the bulk of our conversation was really about,  the movement folks saying that it really depends on how the giving circles or the people in giving circles are willing to show up.

You can see how simplistic my headlines are here: “Do your best” and “show up, more.” But there’s really  a lot within that. And so, let me take them one at a time. Do your best. I don’t mean to minimize it. I’m not saying just do your best, but really trying to show up as your best self, doing your best as a giving circle, as an individual.

You can see the first bullet there. Strive to be engaged, humble, reliable, and loving. These adjectives are not chosen by accident. These four adjectives are the main themes that come up again and again. And for me, in our RADFund work, this one of my takeaways is using these four as a checklist: are we being engaged? Are we being humble? Are we being reliable? And loving?

I’ve talked a little bit about “engage,” but one of the conversations that we had was these kinds of two models. One of like a super donor model that was primarily about, just how much money can we channel to these groups? And one that was about a more engaged model of doing more, going beyond money.

One of the things that was interesting to me is how much folks wanted to go beyond money, not just because it added additional inputs, additional contributions, but because they felt that that was the better way to build a relationship. When it is just money, it becomes easier to walk away from, it becomes more transactional.

But when it goes beyond money, that’s when it becomes a more complex, nuanced relationship and gets away from exclusively the grantor-grantee or donor-recipient type of relationship. We’ll talk a little bit more about reliability. Humility came up. De-centering oneself is a concept that we heard a lot about.

With all of these things, I’ll say this a few different times, but participants in movements were really emphatic that when they talked about what their ideal partner, their ideal supporter, their ideal ally would look like, they never wanted it to be exclusive. They never wanted to say that if you can’t live up to all these things then go away.

They were saying like, this would be best, but we understand that not everybody can do all of these things all of the time. This idea of “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is also captured in “do your best.” The second is this idea of showing up more, that donations are [only] the first step.

This is what I was talking about, going beyond the donor relationship. One of the participants  talked about this as approaching the groups and the movement and the community’s goals and challenges. So instead of it being “I’m going to give money for them to solve the problems,” it’s, “I am part of this and I see the problems.” Oh, somebody needs a ride? Or somebody needs childcare while they go to the picket line? Being present and engaged in that way allows the movement to build.

I’m going to share a few of the different ideas. I know there’s a lot here and we will share this deck afterwards. So you don’t have to read all of it, but you can see a lot of the ideas here about going beyond the dollar, doing the dollar, but also the different ways of showing up.

Just two more guiding questions and then we’ll get to Q&A.

The next one was, how are we willing to learn? And a lot of the folks in movement had the concern that some of the really needed changes in the language that we use, in how we approach movement spaces, while that has made it feel safer for different types of folks to be involved and be centered in movement spaces, that also could be alienating for folks who are not familiar with the language or are worried that they’re going to get language wrong or don’t understand every issue and every intricacy.

And so one of the things they talked about was this idea of learning to navigate movement spaces, like learning how to be comfortable in different [spaces], either organization spaces or social justice spaces and some of the ways that giving circles, giving circle members can do that.

So some of them offer training and so, completing and pursuing that type of training. But there was also this idea of, “Do the work,” that if you’re able to do some of that work before you show up in a space, that allows you to be a better ally when you are in that space.

Because instead of spending time in a space, by educating yourself, you’re able to have some familiarity before entering it. But they also were emphatic that that should not be dispositive, that they didn’t want folks to be uncomfortable entering the space. They really were encouraging folks to also be able to ask about concepts, either language or issues or policies that you’re not familiar with, but also be able and willing to ask where to learn, to be the humble student and ask like, “Oh, that’s a phrase that I am not familiar with. Can you point me to any resources where I could learn, or better understand it?”

We’re not gearing social justice spaces to donors or to giving circle members, but using them as an opportunity for folks to learn. You can see a couple of the quotes that we had here, talking about what it means to be an allyship, an ally, and what it means to be in solidarity. I really love this quote on the right: “We should provide more spaces that are safe for this group to fail, to say the wrong thing, ask the wrong question, who don’t know about the issues. Gradually radicalize.”

And then the last question, how are we willing to give up power? You can see these high concept headlines. Build structured accountability. Don’t gatekeep relationships. Embrace longevity. I will articulate them in terms of what we need to let go of as giving circles.

So the first one here is expertise. A lot of us are very used to doing the work and then becoming experts and then implementing that expertise. [But] this is a space where we’re just never going to be the foremost expert. What social justice movements need is always going to be better articulated by the folks who are doing social justice work. So when we enter those spaces, when we build that relationship, it’s an opportunity for us to ask for feedback, ask for ideas, and then really let that feedback drive our plans for change.

The second is not gatekeeping relationships. It’s a nuanced one because I think building the relationships with folks in movements with movement organizations is so important to growing these movements. It’s so important to understand exactly what we are talking about here, but we never want our relationships to be at the expense of others.

Particularly with giving circles, this is one that I think takes a lot of work that we frankly have  struggled with. When you have a giving circle member who takes responsibility for building a relationship with the head of an organization or somebody else in the organization, how do you make sure that that relationship does not then exclude the rest of the giving circle?

Put another way, if the giving circle and its surrounding folks is its own network, how do we make sure that that whole network is part of the social justice movement and not just the person who holds that relationship? So, part of it is, as we say here, encouraging members to build directly with organizations. You have one primary relationship, but allow other relationships to flourish.

And then this last point is one that came up again and again, the importance of, when you build relationships with organizations or build relationships with parts of social justice movements, it is highlighting those folks to your network, to other donors, to other folks. One person put this as,  essentially, donating your network.

That’s another thing that you can do besides donating money, time, or expertise, is donating the relationships that you have, and letting go of your ownership of those relationships.

The last, this is not a sexy item, is to embrace longevity, but it is one that came up again and again. I think for a lot of us who are trying to engage with social justice movements, it’s very tempting and easy to do it on our terms when it is convenient. One theme that we heard again and again is how important long lasting relationships are. So talks about multi-year grants here, but folks talked about this in many, many ways.

I’ll take you to the last slide, this quote that I have about longevity, when we asked folks who work in social justice movements about what their greatest concern was or their greatest fear. And I think we were looking for something like, oh, the unintended consequences of giving circle members trying to help out, but actually causing problems.

That is not what came up. The greatest fear that folks expressed again and again is that folks would burn out, is that we, as giving circles, would want to do so much so fast that we would not be able to maintain the relationship. And folks really emphasize the importance of doing this work and helping this work over longer periods of time and use different metaphors like “a marathon, not a sprint” or “a marriage, not a fling.”

We’re talking about the desire to have these relationships that can last for years and decades and can build these movements over time rather than doing so much so fast that you cannot sustain it.

For the rest of the session, Seiji took questions from the group on these topics and how they related to participants’ individual giving circles or social justice movements.

Seiji Carpenter: All right, y’all. I just want to shout out again, we at the Social Justice Giving Circle Project are going to be doing a pilot. I dropped the link in the chat for the two phases we’re going to be releasing. Hopefully, our goal is to create a space for folks to practice being in movement.

If you have any questions or want to sit down with me for a one-on-one to learn more about that pilot, please feel free to sign up in the link that I dropped in the chat. I’ll share it again, both the two pages and my link to set up a meeting. And with that, if we don’t have any other questions, I’m down to release y’all. Thank you all very much. Nice seeing you all. Thank you for joining. Thank you.