The change to come
Those most impacted by racism and a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the charity sector are uniquely and ideally placed to offer up ways to deliver diversity and anti-racism. This final subsection is focused on what needs to be done differently. It is sourced from the roundtable with racial justice advocates and activists, the in-depth interviews with BAME people, and the online survey.
Rethinking and reimagining ‘race’ and racism
We describe above how some BAME participants in our research see some charities as being in denial about racism.
The online survey showed that only 20 per cent (87 respondents out of 450) agreed that charity sector leaders (e.g. chief executives and chairs of trustees) are willing to talk openly and honestly about race equality and racism. In contrast, 58 per cent (261 respondents out of 450) disagreed with the statement.
Ideas about the need to rethink racism were informed by concerns expressed in the roundtable, and in some of the interviews with BAME people, that the diversity agenda can too easily be used as a cosmetic exercise, rather than meaningfully opening up organisations to ‘difference’, as illustrated in the following quote:
In both of my roles, the charities wanted someone ‘diverse’ physically, but mentally identical to their white staff (talk the same, went to the same school, have the same hobbies, etcetera). They were not ready for someone to challenge them on their equality and diversity policies and practices.
Online survey
Similarly, a participant in the racial justice roundtable noted that the diversity agenda is open to being co-opted by organisations. They cited the police as knowing the right things to say with regard to workforce diversity while doing disproportionate harm to black people. In light of this, they suggested it was hard for the concept of diversity to carry real weight.
In the roundtable discussion, especially, there was a desire to see the sector interrogate ideas of colonialism, whiteness and ‘white fragility’ (see Section 3 for more on these themes) and recognise its own institutionalised racism. This would also enable charities to better discuss ‘race’ and racism and to recognise the normalcy of racism across society – including in the charity sector.
One mode of ensuring that this discussion takes place, identified in the roundtable on racial justice, is by exerting external pressure on the sector as well as ensuring the greater accountability (see below for more) of the charity sector on issues of diversity and racism.
Training was another means suggested to facilitate rethinking and new conversations (mentioned 236 times in the online survey). The main thrust was that there should be newly designed training specifically for the charity sector (rather than deploying generic ‘unconscious bias’ training). Furthermore, there were suggestions that training should be ongoing and mandatory – especially for senior staff and those who recruit for charities.
It was noted in the advocate and activist roundtable that the racial justice movement also has work to do. For example, there was a call for a more sophisticated and consistent approach to ‘intersectionality’ – in particular talking inclusively about the ways in which ‘race’ overlaps and interacts with disability, class and gender.
Building accountability
One of the big themes to emerge across our BAME interviews, racial justice roundtable and online survey was that of accountability.
In the roundtable for racial justice activists there was a wide-ranging discussion about making the charity sector more accountable on issues of racism and diversity. It was suggested that charities need to consider taking action against racism as seriously as most take filing their accounts on time. It was further argued that there can only
be accountability if there are significant consequences for not doing enough on racism and diversity.
Accountability and related concepts such as responsibility were mentioned in one form or another many times in the solutions section of the online survey. The focus was especially on charities publishing data. The most prominent call (with 142 mentions in the online survey) was to publish ethnicity pay gap data (see ACAS and Government and Equalities Office, 2020) – sometimes with the added suggestion that this should be a Charity Commission requirement. In the same survey there were calls (82 mentions) for more accountability and responsibility for ‘race’, racism and diversity, including mandatory reporting and target-setting on numbers/proportions of BAME staff and trustees. Others recommended publishing organisational diversity data to show whether BAME people are present in or moving towards senior management positions in charities.
Also, in the online survey, in response to perceived shortcomings in the accountability and responsiveness of charities to cases of racism, there were calls for an independent ombudsman, complaints service or free, confidential, specialist advice line to manage these complaints.
Redistributing power – redesigning charity
Related to the principle of accountability is the question of where power lies in the charity sector. There were concerns that the relative strength and resources of the mainstream sector made it somewhat immune to efforts to hold it to account on diversity and racism.
One of the counterbalances suggested, especially in interviews with BAME people and the racial justice roundtable, was the need to invest in BAME-led civil society, including supporting groups to own buildings, so that this part of civil society is better able to support BAME populations, develop strategies for transformation in the charity sector, and hold the sector to account. There were parallel calls to enable BAME people in the charity sector to come together for mutual support, to provide ‘safe spaces’ in which to air concerns, and to build power to press for change from within charitable organisations.
The racial justice roundtable also considered how BAME-led civil society could use its existing power for change. Reflections included the need for some people to work within the sector for change and others to do so from the outside. There was also a discussion about the need – at times – for direct action, and an example was given of how university buildings have been occupied in order to secure change.
Finally, the dialogue about redistributing and realigning power in the charity sector led to thoughts about redesigning the sector. For example, it was felt in some quarters that the diversity agenda itself accentuates the power of charities, which get to decide which BAME people to include and on what terms:
People that are privileged in some way are always, like, ‘What can we do to give access to people to come to our table?’ when to me, that’s not the question. The question is that table was never made with people like me in mind. It’s never going to be. You can put on a posh frock, but you won’t fit. Because the rules that you’re playing by are somebody else’s. To me, it’s about creating a new table.
Interview – BAME charity employee
The above is a call for a real rethink about the foundations on which charities operate. To this end, in the racial justice roundtable, there was also considerable interest in revisioning charity and the charity sector. This includes rearticulating and rethinking what the charity sector is trying to achieve, and creating different structures that might better serve this overarching purpose. There were also ideas for changing charity governance, e.g. the idea that one has to be a service user to be a trustee.
Fundamental charity redesign is beyond the scope of this project and report. However, such sentiments do echo the work of Civil Society Futures (2018b) which shows that the shape of charities and civil society is too often ill-suited to the work that needs to be done in changing, often tumultuous times. It is likely that without meaningful change in mainstream charities responses to how BAME people are situated in their organisations and in society at large, calls will grow for radical redesign of the sector.
Changes in everyday practice
The substantive changes identified above on rethinking racism, growing accountability and redesigning charity take time, as they involve important ‘rewiring’ in the charity system. That is not to say that we can’t take immediate action on these issues. Some other practical changes can be implemented on a (much) shorter timescale.
Recruitment and progression were mentioned in one form or another 87 times in the solutions section of the online survey. Ideas included nine requests for ‘blind’ recruitment processes, where names and ethnicities are obscured
at least until interview. There were also five mentions of a ‘Rooney Rule’, whereby at least one BAME candidate is interviewed for all positions (Kelner, 2018).
One BAME interviewee described some questions that can be introduced into interviews to understand and enhance how candidates think about themselves, diversity and racism:
One of the questions I introduced in all senior leadership recruitment … [is] ‘Have you experienced any societal barriers that have impacted on your career; on your career or development prospects?’ … We’ve had some of them talk about being a female, you know, and being been denied and always assumed that they are the P.A. when they are actually the manager and all that, so it shows some awareness, you know, but most of them are absolutely shell shocked.
Interview – BAME charity employee
The responses to the question above, on the whole, were disappointing. But, at the same time the (lack of) answers can help an organisation to screen out and screen in candidates based on their understanding of structural discrimination and disadvantage.
Finally, there were also longer-term suggestions about how the charity sector works to recruit new staff or individuals into their first charity jobs, and the need for new pathways for first-time applicants via outreach in schools; targeted presence at all university careers events, not just Russell Group Universities; and bursary and paid internship schemes that provide living allowances to BAME people.
