Why broken promises to Black organizations keep happening
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
In the warm summer of 2020, millions of voices filled the streets to demand justice. These massive protests occurred after the tragic deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. In response, major corporations and wealthy foundations promised to take action. They pledged over four billion dollars to support racial equity and fund Black-led organizations. (thegrio.com)
However, newly released research reveals that this massive wave of funding was highly temporary. A landmark study published in April 2026 by Candid and ABFE shows a rapid decline in financial support (nonprofitquarterly.org). The initial financial gains for Black-led groups have evaporated. To understand this modern withdrawal of support, one must look deep into the past. This decline is not a brand-new issue. It represents a long, repeating pattern of crisis-driven giving and systemic disinvestment in Black communities.
The Deep Roots of Mutual Aid and Survival
Long before modern foundations existed, Black philanthropy served as a critical tool for survival. This giving was rooted deeply in West African traditions of communal support and shared responsibility. Enslaved Africans built informal networks under brutal conditions to share food, shelter, and medical care. After emancipation, these actions expanded into formal systems during the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras.
During these harsh times, Black communities relied on collective giving to build what the state refused to provide. They pooled their limited money through churches and mutual aid societies to fund schools, hospitals, and legal defense (archives.gov). These community-led efforts to survive laid the groundwork for Black institutional independence.
Early Black business leaders, such as Madam C.J. Walker, also used their personal wealth to fund civil rights organizations and education during the Great Migration (nypl.org). The Great Migration saw over six million African Americans flee the oppressive Southern Jim Crow system for industrial cities in the North and West (nypl.org). This rapid population shift created an urgent need for local community services and housing networks. This legacy of self-reliance shows that Black communities have always funded their own liberation.
Civil Rights and the Trap of Philanthropic Steering
During the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-twentieth century, grassroots groups faced intense financial challenges. Most traditional, white-led foundations refused to fund racial justice because they feared political backlash. Only a small number of progressive families actively supported critical voting drives (rockarch.org). When major foundations finally entered the space, they often tried to steer the movement.
Between 1965 and 1970, the Ford Foundation poured millions of dollars into civil rights efforts (rockarch.org). However, historical records show a strong preference for highly professionalized, moderate organizations. Foundations favored these groups over radical, street-level organizers. This institutional preference is known as organizational rationalization, where funders demand formal bureaucracy (stanford.edu).
Rationalized organizations are structured around bureaucratic rules, expert-led litigation, and clear metrics. These formal structures satisfy wealthy donors but can distance organizations from grassroots community needs. Scholars have documented how this funding effectively redirected groups like the NAACP away from fighting racial violence toward more moderate, court-focused goals (cambridge.org). This historical shift illustrates how external capital can alter the agendas of Black-led movements.
Rising Up Against Institutional Exclusion
The persistent exclusion of Black voices from philanthropic decision-making led to a major clash in 1971. During the annual conference of the Council on Foundations, Black philanthropic professionals were denied seats on the board (nonprofitquarterly.org). In response, forward-thinking Black executives organized to demand structural change. They established the Association of Black Foundation Executives, which is commonly known as ABFE (nonprofitquarterly.org).
This bold action marked the creation of the first official affinity group in the philanthropic sector (cof.org). In philanthropy, an affinity group is an independent network of grantmakers who associate based on shared identities or common values. ABFE was designed to advocate for equity, inclusion, and responsive funding in Black communities.
Over the decades, affinity groups have worked to guide foundations toward more equitable giving habits. Despite these decades of advocacy, the traditional philanthropic sector has struggled to move past its exclusionary roots. The power to decide where money goes has remained concentrated in a very small, non-diverse circle of leaders.
The 2020 Reckoning and the Illusion of Change
The summer of 2020 was widely celebrated as a historic awakening for racial justice. Yet, this sudden surge of interest occurred against a deep backdrop of financial neglect. Just as public protests peaked, a major report in August 2020 exposed severe funding gaps (ncrp.org). The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy revealed that only one percent of community foundation funding went to Black communities (ncrp.org). This disparity left local groups underfunded during intense economic justice struggles.
To counter the public outrage, corporations and foundations announced massive financial pledges. For a short time, giving to Black communities peaked at nearly two percent of overall philanthropic funding (nonprofitquarterly.org). However, this reactive boom quickly faded as public pressure decreased. By the year 2022, funding had dropped to just over one percent of total giving (nonprofitquarterly.org).
Researchers tracked this decline using public IRS Form 990 data, which is an annual financial tax return required for tax-exempt organizations (candid.org). By 2023, funding levels returned to their historically low baselines. This rapid decline proved that the apparent commitment to racial equity was largely performative.
Average Likelihood of Receiving a Grant (2016–2023)
Hard Numbers Behind the Missing Philanthropic Dollars
The April 2026 report by Candid and ABFE provides a deep statistical look at these broken promises (nonprofitquarterly.org). Candid is a prominent information service formed by the merger of GuideStar and the Foundation Center (candid.org). Between 2016 and 2023, only half of Black-led nonprofits received a foundation grant in any given year (nonprofitquarterly.org). In contrast, seventy percent of non-Black-led peer organizations successfully secured funding. This significant gap demonstrates that access to philanthropic resources remains highly unequal.
Furthermore, the financial benefits of the 2020 boom did not reach grassroots organizations. Over seventy-five percent of Black-led groups with budgets under one million dollars experienced no funding increase (nonprofitquarterly.org). Only thirty percent of small, grassroots Black-led groups received a foundation grant in any given year (nonprofitquarterly.org).
Foundations also treated these grants as one-time transactions rather than long-term investments. Small Black-led nonprofits received only about one-third of their funding from repeat supporters (nonprofitquarterly.org). This gap forces leaders to spend precious time constantly searching for new donors. Only one-third of Black-led groups received unrestricted operating support, leaving most unable to build lasting stability (nonprofitquarterly.org).
Racial Equity Giving Share Over Time
The Political Chill and Chilling Language Pressures
A hostile socio-political climate has made this financial withdrawal even more difficult. In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions in higher education in the case of Students for Fair Admissions (americanbar.org). This historic ruling triggered a wave of legal threats against diversity programs across the country. Foundations immediately grew fearful of litigation, leading to a strong chilling effect on funding for racial equity.
This political backlash has placed intense pressure on Black-led organizations. A Candid and ABFE report from December 2025 highlights these ongoing challenges (nonprofitquarterly.org). Over seventy-six percent of Black-led groups explicitly use race-conscious language in their public missions, compared to forty-three percent of non-Black groups (nonprofitquarterly.org).
However, more than fifteen percent of these groups reported explicit pressure from funders to soften or remove these terms (nonprofitquarterly.org). Funders frequently demand the removal of words like “Black” or “racial equity” as a condition for grants. Activists like Cliff Albright of Black Voters Matter have noted that groups are literally being asked to do more with fewer resources (thegrio.com). Black Voters Matter is a community empowerment group that fights voter suppression and builds year-round political power in marginalized Southern communities (blackvotersmatterfund.org).
Trust-Based Giving and the Path to True Equity
To break these historical cycles, the philanthropic sector must shift its core approach. Experts advocate for trust-based philanthropy, a concept developed by the Whitman Institute in 2014 (trustbasedphilanthropy.org). This approach seeks to rebalance the unequal power dynamics between wealthy funders and community leaders. It requires foundations to treat grantees as trusted partners rather than suspicious actors.
The April 2026 report outlines three vital steps to achieve this transformation (nonprofitquarterly.org). First, foundations must provide long-term, unrestricted funding so organizations can build infrastructure. Second, funders must actively open their exclusive social networks to Black nonprofit leaders. Finally, large institutions must use their influence to defend racial justice groups against political backlash. Rather than retreating, wealthy donors should support organizations that are actively shaping political dynamics in their local communities. These changes are essential to convert temporary charity into lasting structural support.
Breaking the Cycle of Performative Capital
The history of American giving reveals a consistent, troubling loop. A highly visible racial crisis occurs, which sparks a brief wave of guilt-driven funding. As soon as the media attention fades, foundations quietly pull their resources back. This retreat leaves Black-led groups in a state of permanent financial instability. It prevents these organizations from fully securing the elusive concept of freedom and equity for their communities.
Dismantling these systemic barriers requires more than short-term statements of solidarity. Wealthy institutions must commit to long-term, trust-based partnerships that yield real power. Temporary financial boosts during moments of crisis will never substitute for permanent structural investment. Until the philanthropic sector undergoes a true transformation, the promises made to Black communities will remain completely unfulfilled.
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
