Contributors
Avi Bond, Tufts summer fellow
Sarina Dayal, knowledge services associate
Mantin Diomande, research analyst
Anna Koob, director of research
Supriya Kumar, research manager
Yumei Lin, Tufts summer fellow
Larry McGill, vice president of knowledge services
Betty Saronson, visual designer
Grace Sato, director of global projects and partnerships
Vanessa Suarez, knowledge services assistantAcknowledgements
Special thanks to Vance Blackfox, Sarah Eagle Heart, and Gina Jackson for their collaboration. Thanks also to Karina Walters, Ph.D. and Danica Brown, Ph.D. forcreating the historical timeline. We are grateful to Carly Hare, national director/coalition catalyst of CHANGE Philanthropy, and Martin Jennings, program officer at
Northwest Area Foundation, for reviewing an early draft of this report and contributing their valuable feedback. And we thank the Investing in Native Communities
web portal advisory committee:
Carly Bad Heart Bull (Dakota/Muskogee Creek)

Martin Jennings (Leech Lake Ojibwe)

Erik Stegman (Carry the Kettle Nakoda First Nation)

Native nations activities manager

Program officer

Executive director

Bush Foundation

Northwest Area Foundation

Center for Native American Youth at the

Sean Buffington

Lyle Matthew KanVice president

Director of research and communications

Victoria Stott (Ho-Chunk)

Henry Luce Foundation

Funders for LGBTQ Issues

Program officer

Hester Dillon (Cherokee Nation)

Lawrence Leake

Program officer for Indigenous communities

Managing director

Edgar Villanueva (Lumbee)

NoVo Foundation

Potlatch Fund

Vice president for programs and advocacy

Louis Gordon (Xicano/Purépecha)

Elizabeth Posey

Program director

Program officer, West

Geneva Wiki (Yurok)

Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples

Marguerite Casey Foundation

Program manager, Building Healthy Communities,

This research was possible because of support by the Bush Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation,
Marguerite Casey Foundation, Northwest Area Foundation, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Aspen Institute

W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Schott Foundation for Public Education

Del Norte & adjacent tribal lands
The California Endowment

About Candid
Every year, millions of nonprofits spend trillions of dollars around the world. Candid finds out where that money comes from, where it goes, and why it matters.
Through research, collaboration, and training, Candid connects people who want to change the world to the resources they need to do it. Candid’s data tools
on nonprofits, foundations, and grants are the most comprehensive in the world. Foundation Center and GuideStar joined forces to become Candid, a 501(c)(3)nonprofit organization. Find out more at candid.org.

About Native Americans in Philanthropy
Native Americans in Philanthropy (NAP) engages, educates, and empowers a sacred circle of Indigenous Peoples and philanthropies to create healthy andsustainable communities for all. Historically, NAP has supported flagship program areas—educating philanthropy, enhancing Native nonprofit leadership, andinvesting in data and research—to drive philanthropic investments to achieve this vision. Find out more at nativephilanthropy.org.
©2019 CandidThis work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license CC BY-NC 4.0.
Download this report at doi.org/c9wj.
Front cover photos: Kisha Bari and Native Americans in Philanthropy

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD

4INTRODUCTION

5

SETTING THE CONTEXT

6FOUNDATION FUNDING FOR NATIVE AMERICANS

12METHODOLOGY

12

PHILANTHROPIC FUNDING TRENDS, 2002–2016

14

Share of overall foundation funding

14

Fluctuations in funding

14

Funding that benefits multiple populations

15

Share of foundations that support Native American communities and causes

16

A CLOSER LOOK AT PHILANTHROPIC INVESTMENTS IN 2015 AND 2016
Top foundations by grant dollars

		

17
			

17

Top recipients by grant dollars						

19

Grant dollars by issue area

					

20

Grant dollars by support strategy

21

Funding for LGBTQ Native American and Two-Spirit communities

22

Grant dollars by U.S. region

23

Funding exclusively benefiting Native Americans

25

Funding explicitly benefiting Alaska Natives

26

Funding explicitly benefiting Native Hawaiians

27

SNAPSHOT OF INVESTMENTS FROM 2017 TO THE PRESENT28

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

29

INVESTING IN INDIAN COUNTRY: BUSH FOUNDATION EVALUATES ITS DATA30LEARNINGS FROM THE FIELD

32

PUTTING LEARNING INTO PRACTICE

36

ENDNOTES

39

FOREWORD

Edgar Villanueva (Lumbee), Chair of the Board of Directors, Native Americans in Philanthropy

It’s been said that
“whoever holds thedata tells the story.”
Our story is a difficult
one, due to the historyof colonization andgenocide in the UnitedStates and around theworld. Because of this,Indigenous peoples
have historically not
been authors of ourown narratives. But
thanks to the work of Native Americans in Philanthropy (NAP), other Nativeled organizations, and Indigenous leaders inside philanthropic institutions,many donors are becoming aware of this history and the resulting trauma
that continues to plague our communities.
Still, too much of our story remains invisible—to policymakers, to mainstream
culture, and to philanthropy. This has resulted in historical underfunding
from the philanthropic sector (Native Americans receive 0.4 percent of grant
dollars, on average, although we represent 2 percent of the population) as
well as instability in year-over-year funding levels. With only 20 percent oflarge foundations giving to Native communities and causes—many of theseintermittently—long-term relationship building between Native communities
and the philanthropic sector becomes incredibly challenging.
Nonetheless, our current story is also one of resilience and opportunity—and powerful Native-led work that is building community, increasing power
and leadership, and preserving our cultures. The world is now looking
to our communities for solutions and leadership across sectors—fromenvironmental conservation to innovative entrepreneurship to cultural4

preservation. Even the field of philanthropy, which is grappling with issuesof diversity, equity, and inclusion, is looking to us for ways to better integratethese values into practice.
Our work at Native Americans in Philanthropy engages philanthropy inlearning about Native peoples, our culture, and our history while challenging
the sector to explore its own history. We also work to increase the sector’s
awareness of how it can better support existing and emerging Native-led
solutions with a spirit of reciprocity. Noticing a need for greater
field-wide data and resources, NAP partnered with Candid to spark
sector-wide discourse and visibility about investments in Native peoples
and communities.
This report and the accompanying web portal, nativephilanthropy.candid.org,
will be invaluable to philanthropic practitioners on this learning journey. It
provides access to the most recent data about funding in Native communities
and contextualizes the data with our history and our voices about howphilanthropy can adopt more equitable practices. In addition, the portal will
help practitioners find and connect with organizations and peers who are
grounded in this work across a range of issue areas. I believe that the datacontained and contextualized by these tools will make the formerly invisible
more visible.
I’d like to thank all who have contributed to the making of this reportand online portal. A special thanks to Candid, the funders of this project,
the advisory committee, and the board and staff of Native Americans in
Philanthropy for this labor of love. It is our hope that through this work,
we can inspire new thinking about philanthropy’s relationship with Native
communities and foster intentional investments specifically to Native-ledorganizations. Money can be medicine if it’s deployed in love and given inways to restore, repair, and heal. Let the healing begin!

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESINTRODUCTION
At the founding meeting of Native Americans in Philanthropy 30 years
ago, William Brescia presented findings from the first-ever analysis ofphilanthropic funding for Native communities and causes. At that time lessthan 0.2 percent of foundation giving was directed to Native causes.1 Since
then, the proportion of grantmaking for Native American communities andcauses has only marginally increased.
In recent years, however, the cultural context has been changing. In 2016 and2017, protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline drew widespread national
and international attention. Thousands of water protectors, Native andnon-Native, traveled to North Dakota in solidarity with the Standing RockSioux Tribe. The movement increased support for the rights of Indigenous
communities and created new opportunities for connection and partnership
between funders and Native tribes and communities.
In June 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom of California formally apologized to
California Native Americans for the state’s “dark history” of violence against
Indigenous peoples, explicitly calling it genocide. A year earlier, Governor
Bill Walker of Alaska had also apologized before the Alaska Federation of
Natives for the historical wrongs done by the state and for generational andhistorical trauma.
Indeed, historical trauma is now more widely recognized: colonization,
genocide, and centuries of systematic oppression have created social,
psychological, physical, economic, and spiritual impacts for generationsof Native Americans. And some traumatic events, such as Indigenous landdispossession for oil extraction, continue to this day. It is not enoughto address the symptoms of oppression. Philanthropy must understandtheir root causes and acknowledge the ways in which it has benefited
from and contributed to these events. Philanthropy needs a truth andhealing movement.
There are signs that the sector is changing. Conversations are taking placeabout how inequities are perpetuated throughout philanthropy. Edgar
Villanueva, in Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides andRestore Balance, and others have called for greater honesty about the origins
of philanthropic wealth. An increasing number of foundations have begun
explicitly addressing racial equity in their missions and programs. Momentumis building for philanthropy to build more equitable, inclusive communities
and to begin using its power and privilege to support grassroots movements.
At the same time, Indigenous communities are engaged in powerful,transformative work. Native organizations and tribal nations play aleading role in supporting Native and non-Native communities, for the
benefit of all. Much of this work, however, takes place outside the view ofmainstream philanthropy.
5

The purpose of this report is to shine a spotlight on philanthropy for Native
communities and causes and to inspire more foundations to partner withNative-led organizations. The data shows that:• From 2002 to 2016, large U.S. foundations gave, on average, 0.4 percent
of total annual funding to Native American communities and causes.
• Funding for Native communities and causes significantly dropped
following the recession. Although grant dollars increased slowly
afterwards, giving in 2015 and 2016, adjusted for inflation, was at
roughly the same level as in 2006.
• Twenty percent of large foundations give to Native communities
and causes. Even among this specific group, most give only one
or two grants.
• The majority of grant dollars are for program support (56 percent);
only 15 percent goes to general operating support.
There are, however, reasons for hope and optimism for more effective
funding partnerships. In “Snapshot of investments from 2017 to thepresent,” we present more recent, significant philanthropic investmentsthat reflect positive shifts in how foundations are partnering withNative-led organizations.
In “Learnings from the field,” we share reflections from allies and funders
about how philanthropy can be more effective partners with Native
communities. Recommendations include:• Meeting people where they are, literally;• Adapting and evolving organizational systems and practices;• Providing long-term general operating support to Native-ledorganizations;• Supporting Native-led solutions;• Partnering with Native-led regranting institutions; and• Grounding the work in your mission.
And in “Putting learning into practice,” we suggest four commitments thatfoundations can make, with resources to assist them in their learning journey.
We hope this report leads to more intentional, sustained support for Nativeled solutions. And we hope the analysis promotes conversations and shifts
in practice that lead to improved data, knowledge sharing, and, ultimately,
greater impact.
INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESSETTING THE CONTEXT
Philanthropy in the United States will not be able to move toward greater equity for Native communities
without first knowing and acknowledging the truth about what has taken place in our shared history.
Dr. Karina Walters, professor and associate dean for research at the University of Washington School ofSocial Work, has compiled a comprehensive history of the United States from an Indigenous perspective.
The full timeline is accessible in an interactive format on the Investing in Native Communities web portal
nativephilanthropy.candid.org. Below are highlights from that timeline, including major settler policies andacts of Native resistance. These historically traumatic events affected generations of Native Americans andcontinue to have consequences for Native communities to this day.

PRIOR TO 1491
TRIBAL INDEPENDENCE ERA. At the time of first contact with Europeans, tribal societies throughout theAmericas and surrounding island nations flourished. Many of the tribal nations and, in some cases, empires
Spear fishing from a canoe. Source: Getty Images

developed sophisticated agricultural, navigational, medicinal, and technological advances that we continue
to use and learn from to this day.

1492
COLUMBUS MAKES LANDFALL on Guanahani in the Caribbean Islands in search of gold and slaves.
He names the island San Salvador. He kidnaps 25 Arawak Natives on his first return voyage back to Spain;
only 8 survive.

1495
Columbus landing on Hispaniola, met by Arawak
Indians. Source: Theodor de Bry

SLAVERY, VIOLENCE, AND DISEASE DECIMATE ISLAND POPULATIONS. As colonizers continue to sailbetween Spain and the Caribbean, measles, smallpox, scarlet fever, and other diseases kill Natives by thehundreds of thousands.
In Haiti, Columbus orders Arawak Natives 14 years and older to collect gold on behalf of the Spanish. If they
fail to collect enough, Columbus has their hands cut off. Bartolome de las Casas, a young Spanish priest who
witnesses many of these atrocities, writes that the Spaniards “thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens andtwenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades.”2 He adds, “I saw here cruelty
on a scale no living being has ever seen or expects to see. ... Our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle
and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.”Soldiers cut the hands off of Arawak Indians who failto meet the mining quota. Source: Theodor de Bry

The Arawaks organize and attempt to fight back. They are overwhelmed by the Spanish military and, when
captured, are burned at the stake or hanged. Arawaks begin committing mass suicides to avoid capture andsubjugation. In a two-year period, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti are dead, through murder, mutilation,or suicide. By 1550, only 500 documented Arawaks remain, and by 1650, apart from a few Arawaks dwelling in
the mountains, most have been annihilated.3

6

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES1513
WORD OF SPANISH BRUTALITY SPREADS ACROSS NATIVE COMMUNITIES, AND THEY RESIST. In 1513,
when Ponce de Leon reaches the Florida Bay, the Calusa tribe greets them with more than 80 war canoes,
driving them off. In 1528, the Timucua tribe fends off 500 Spanish settlers who attempt to colonize Tampa Bay.
Timucuan warriors are ultimately defeated in 1539 by the Spanish, led by Hernando De Soto, who conducts thefirst large-scale massacre of Natives on what is now U.S. soil (Napituca Massacre). Spain gives De Soto license
to “conquer, pacify, and people” the lands known as La Florida (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Engraving of Hernando De Soto
Source: John Sartain; Robert Telfer

Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana).

1600s
THE AMERICAN INDIAN SLAVE TRADE THRIVES, as Europeans establish permanent colonies and economies
to produce goods for trade. Demand for labor in the West Indies grows with the cultivation of sugar cane, andEuropeans enslave and export Native Americans to the “sugar islands.” In addition, British settlers, especiallythose in the southern colonies, purchase or capture Native Americans to use as forced labor in cultivating
tobacco, rice, and indigo. The international trade of American Indians leads to depopulation and decimation
for some tribes and near-total annihilation for others. Slavery is eventually codified in law in all 13 colonies
that would eventually become the United States.

Native Americans enslaved by Spaniards
Source: Theodor de Bry

1636
THE PEQUOT WAR AND THE BIRTH OF THANKSGIVING. The “Pequot War” refers to a series of armed
conflicts that culminate in the decimation and enslavement of the Pequot by Puritan settlers. On
May 26, 1637, the Pequot tribe, gathered along the Mystic River for the annual Green Corn Festival, is attacked(now known as the Mystic Massacre). William Bradford, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, declares“a day of Thanksgiving, thanking God that they had eliminated over 700 men, women, and children.”4
On June 5, 1637, another massacre of the Pequot takes place, after which churches announce a second dayof thanksgiving to celebrate the victory. On July 28, a third attack ends the “war.” The day after, Bradford
writes that, moving forward, the day will be a day of celebration and thanksgiving. For Puritans and English

Mystic Massacre. Source: MoonWaterMancolonists, this day of thanksgiving is not a celebration of a successful harvest but rather the successful
massacre of a Native tribe.

1638
PURITANS FORCE THE QUINNIPIAC TRIBE ONTO THE FIRST RESERVATION within the borders of thepresent-day United States, near what is now New Haven, Connecticut. The Quinnipiac are forbidden toleave the reservation and prohibited from traditional ceremonial practices.

New Haven, the first reservation, on a map
Source: Kmusser

1705
BLOOD QUANTUM LAWS SUPPORT CHATTEL SLAVERY AND THE STEALING OF LANDS. The Virginia colony
is the first to adopt “race” (blood quantum) laws that limit the civil and land rights of American Indians andAfricans. “Any amount of African ancestry, no matter how remote, and regardless of phenotypical appearance,
makes a person Black. For Indians, in stark contrast, any non-Indian ancestry compromises indigeneity,
producing ‘half breeds’—a regime that persists in the form of contemporary blood quantum regulations today.
As opposed to enslaved people, whose reproduction augmented their owners’ wealth, Indigenous people
obstructed settlers’ access to land, so their increase was counterproductive. In this way, the restrictive racialclassification of Indians straightforwardly furthered the logic of elimination.”5This is the origin of the “one-drop rule” for African ancestry and the “half or more rule” for American Indians:

Certified Degree of Indian Blood Card issued to Morris
Phillip Konstantin in 1996. It shows him to be 3/16ths
Cherokee by blood. Source: Phil Konstantin

7

Those who are “one-drop African” can be slave chattel; those who are less than half Native are not deemed
Native and, therefore, have no land rights and can have their land taken away. Natives identified as mixed aredesignated “mulatto” and have associated limited civil rights parallel to Africans.

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES1763
BRITAIN WAGES GERM WARFARE WITH SMALLPOX-INFESTED BLANKETS. Britain now holds command overmost of North America, having defeated France in the Seven Years’ War. Natives, however, continue resisting
the British takeover of land. Jeffery Amherst, Britain’s commander-in-chief in North America, authorizes theuse of smallpox to wipe out the Native American enemy. On July 8, 1763, Amherst writes about the situation
in western Pennsylvania: “Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected Tribes ofIndians? We must, on this occasion, use every stratagem in our power to reduce them.”6 On July 16, he adds,
Image of a Mesoamerican infected with smallpox
Source: Granger Collection, New York“You will Do well to try to Inoculate the Indians by means of Blankets, as well as to try Every other methodthat can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race.”

1783
THE END OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR RESULTS IN FURTHER SEIZURE OF NATIVE LANDS. Treaties
defining U.S. territory make no mention of the rights of American Indian tribes, nor whether their previous
treaties with other foreign powers will be honored. Instead, the Americans seize British lands as spoils ofwar. Indian nations unite to fight American invasion and establishment of military forts and settlementsin their territories. In the 1790s, Wyandot (Huron), Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, Odawa (Ottawa), Ojibwe(Chippewa), Miami, Munsee, and other tribes wage campaigns against the U.S. to try to prevent their own
Three chiefs of the Huron. Source: Edward Chatfield

displacement and land dispossession.

1806
SHAWNEE BROTHERS TECUMSEH AND TENSKWATAWA CALL FOR A UNIFIED PAN-TRIBAL NATIVERESISTANCE MOVEMENT. In 1808, they establish Prophetstown (near present-day Lafayette, Indiana) as thecenter of their movement, which grows to thousands of followers and mobilizes Native peoples in the west
to resist American encroachment and assimilationist policies. In 1813, Tecumseh is killed, and the resistancecollapses. Americans swiftly demand forced removal of the Wyandot (Huron), Lenape (Delaware), Wea, Miami,
Peoria, Shawnee, and nearly all tribes north of Ohio and around Michigan.
Shawnee Prophet, Tenskwatawa
Source: Charles Bird King

1823
THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT AMERICAN INDIANS DO NOT OWN THE LAND. In Johnson v. McIntosh,
Chief Justice John Marshall invokes the Doctrine of Discovery as a foundation for Indian removal and seizureof Native lands. American Indians only have a “right of occupancy” and do not have title to their lands. The
title to land always lies with its “discoverer,” not the inhabitants. This decision sets the precedent for future
Indian removal and provides legal justification for the U.S. government to strip Native peoples away fromtheir traditional homelands.

1830
Portrait of Chief Justice John MarshallSource: Alonzo Chappel

THE INDIAN REMOVAL ACT AUTHORIZES THE REMOVAL OF SOUTHERN TRIBES TO FEDERAL TERRITORY
WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI. The act and its implementation are genocidal in intent and action, setting
the stage for the Trail of Tears and other forced relocation marches. The Choctaw (1831), Seminole (1832),
Muscogee Creek (1834), Chickasaw (1837), and Cherokee (1838) are relocated to Indian Territory in what is
now the state of Oklahoma. By 1850, more than 46,000 Natives are displaced, including numerous tribesin the north.

Congressional debates concerning Andrew Jackson’s
Indian Removal Act. Source: The Library of Congress

8

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES1851
CONGRESS PASSES THE INDIAN APPROPRIATIONS ACT, MOVING TRIBES ONTO RESERVATIONS. The law
steals prime land from Plains tribes for American settlement and confines Indians to undesired land andrestricts their movement. They are under mandatory internment and prohibited from leaving reservations,even for traditional food gathering, hunting, or fishing activities (thus increasing their dependence upon
the government for food). Tribes actively resist, which U.S. history books refer to as the “Indian Plains
Wars.” After several massacres and all-out assaults on Indian nations, the U.S. Army ultimately succeeds in
Shosone at Fort Washakie reservation in Wyoming,
1892. Source: National Archives at College Park

relocating most Indian tribes onto reservations, opening Native lands to White settlers. By the 1880s, alleastern Indian nations are moved to reservations, where they are also systematically excluded from theAmerican economy and political system.

1879
BOARDING SCHOOL POLICY REMOVES NATIVE CHILDREN FROM THEIR HOMES. The U.S. government
launches a policy of forcibly removing Native children from their families and placing them in residential
boarding schools far from their homelands and cultural contacts. Captain Richard H. Pratt establishes themodel for off-reservation boarding schools with the motto “Kill the Indian, save the man.” The goal is thecomplete eradication of Native identity, culture, and values and the adoption of White/Euro-American,
Pupils at Carlisle Indian Industrial School,
Pennsylvania (c. 1900). Source: Frontier Forts

Christian, and heteropatriarchal values. Tactics include cutting the hair and braids of Indian children,
forbidding Indian languages or customs, forcing Christianity and Christian practices, and forbidding hugging
even among siblings. In many boarding schools, children are severely punished or tortured if caught
violating any of the rules and, in some cases, murdered. Parents who refuse to send their children are
imprisoned. By 1880, there are more than 7,000 Indian children enrolled in federally supported missionaryrun boarding schools.7

1887
CONGRESS PASSES THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT (DAWES ACT), which ends the reservation system andauthorizes the federal confiscation and redistribution of tribal lands. The intent is the complete dissolution
Advertisement for the sale of Native American landof tribal landholdings and the systematic destruction of tribal leadership and authority. The act divides
tribal lands into allotments for individual Native families, imposing systems of private property contrary
to traditional Native views of the land. Only those who are listed on government-administered tribal rolls
can obtain land, and the government designates “federally enrolled members” of tribes based on blood
quantum. The remaining lands are sold to American settlers or timber and companies and other businesses.
From 1887 to 1934, more than 60 percent of remaining Indian land—over 86 million acres—passes into
non-Indian hands.

1898
U.S. ANNEXES HAWAI’I AND SEIZES ROYAL AND GOVERNMENT LANDS, while simultaneously launching
Hawaiian flag being lowered from ‘Iolani Palace on
Annexation Day. Source: Hawai’i State Archives

a campaign to outlaw traditional healing practices. Traditional healers (Kahuna) are fined or imprisoned if
caught practicing. The law is not overturned until 1973.

1924
PASSAGE OF THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT (also known as the Snyder Act) grants citizenship to Native
Americans born in the U.S. and allows them to vote in national elections. But in some states, such as in
New Mexico and Arizona, Indians are still prohibited from voting in state or local elections foranother 40 years.

President Coolidge stands with four Osage Indians at
White House ceremony. Source: Library of Congress

9

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES1934
CONGRESS PASSES THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT (INDIAN NEW DEAL), which ends the policy of
breaking up Indian lands through the allotment system, spurs Indian land reform efforts, and supports
Indian economic and tribal self-sufficiency. The law supports redevelopment of tribal governments, thoughthese governments are mandated to be mirror images of American systems and are not representative of
traditional tribal systems. The law gives tribes one year to adopt a tribal council (a form of government
imposed by the federal government), without which they cannot negotiate education and health care forJohn Collier, commissioner of the Bureau of IndianAffairs, with tribal leaders, said to be from theBlackfeet Nation, 1934. Source: History.Com

their communities. Overall, 77 tribes reject the bill, and 181 tribes accept it. Many feel it is not legal, given
legally binding earlier treaties. Some also believe that no changes to treaties can be undertaken without
three-quarters of the tribe achieving consensus and approval for the change. Alaska and Oklahoma are
excluded from most provisions.8

1953
CONGRESS FORMALLY ADOPTS A POLICY OF “TERMINATION,” REVOKING FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF
TRIBES. Public Law 280 is enacted ostensibly to end Indian status as “wards of the federal government,”
but in reality results in loss of self-government, loss of federal protections and services, and expansion ofstate jurisdiction. Thirteen tribes are terminated; among the largest are the Menominee Nation in Wisconsin
Arthur Vivian Watkins, chief Congressional proponentof Indian termination. Source: Biographical Directoryof the United States Congress

and the Klamath in Oregon. In 1970, President Richard Nixon declares that forced termination is wrong andrecommends that it end. In 1975, the passage of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
effectively ends the termination policy by increasing tribal rights and control.

1956
THE INDIAN RELOCATION ACT OF 1956 LAUNCHES URBAN RELOCATION. An extension of the termination
policy, the law is intended to stimulate relocation and assimilation of Natives into the general population in
urban areas. It plays a significant role in increasing the population of urban Indians in succeeding decades.
At a time when the federal government is decreasing funds to Indians living on reservations, it promises topay for moving expenses and provide services such as vocational training and health insurance to Natives
Field Office Poster. Source: Chicago Field Office
Employment Assistance Case Files, 1952–1960, Record
Group 75, Bureau of Indian Affairs

who leave reservations and move to government-designated cities. In the cities, however, Natives
experience poverty, culture shock, and homelessness. Overall, the program has devastating long-term
effects, including cultural and social isolation from tribal communities and racial, housing, and job
discrimination and segregation.

1971
ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT. Alaska Natives organize the Arctic Slope Native Association,
contesting in a legal suit that the State of Alaska has violated Alaska Native land rights by opening
their lands for lease to private oil companies, netting more than $1 billion. Other Native claims result insettlement legislation in Congress, giving Alaska Natives a land grant of 44 million acres and $962 million incompensation for giving up claims to 9/10ths of Alaska. The land is to be divided among 220 Native village
Regional corporations established by the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act. Source: U.S. National Park Service“corporations” and 12 regional corporations established under the act for doing business for profit. Although
the Alaska Federation approves of the project, it remains controversial among Alaska Natives, who see it as
destroying traditional lands and cultural practices associated with the land.

1975
THE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT is signed into law by President
Gerald R. Ford, establishing a legal framework for tribes to exercise their right to govern and protect
tribal citizens, lands, and resources. It is amended in 1988 with the creation of the Tribal Self-Governance
Demonstration Project, giving Indian tribes the responsibility of administering services and activities
President Gerald Ford visits Oklahoma during Native
American Awareness Week, 1976. Source: Gerald R.
Ford Library

10

previously managed by the Department of the Interior. In 1994 and 2000, the act is expanded again,
permanently authorizing the Self-Governance project to the Indian Health Service. These policies help set
the environment for present-day self-determination efforts.

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES

1978
THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT addresses the high rate of Native children being removed from theirfamilies and communities and placed in non-Native homes. With this act, Congress acknowledges that states
have failed to recognize tribal sovereignty and creates procedural provisions to eliminate Indian child removal
due to cultural biases, ensure that children are placed in foster and adoptive Indian homes, and promote theuse of tribal courts to adjudicate child custody proceedings.
Lasakuyuntehse (He Brings Thunder) member of the
Oneida Nation. Source: Ernest Mettendorf

1990
THE NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT requires federal agencies andinstitutions that receive federal funding (such as museums) to return Native American cultural items todescendants and affiliated tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Cultural items include “human remains,
funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.”9 A program of federal grants assists thisprocess, and the Secretary of the Interior is empowered to assess civil penalties on museums that fail to comply.

2007
THE UNITED NATIONS ADOPTS THE DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.
It “emphasizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures
Artifacts from the Susquehannocks. Source: US
Census, Ruhrfischand traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.” Thedeclaration “prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples” and “promotes their full and effective
participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own
visions of economic and social development.” The U.S. is one of four countries to vote against it in 2007,
but in 2010, President Barack Obama declares the nation’s support.

2016
DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROTESTS. A grassroots movement develops in protest to the construction of the
Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatens the drinking water, treaty lands, and sacred sites of the Standing RockSioux Tribe. Tokata Iron Eyes and her friends organize a social media campaign, “ReZpect Our Water,” to stop
United Nations logo

the pipeline. Standing Rock Sioux elder LaDonna Brave Bull Allard establishes a camp as a center for culturalpreservation and resistance to the pipeline, drawing thousands of Water Protectors, both Native and nonNative, to North Dakota. However, on February 7, 2017, President Trump authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers
to proceed with construction of the pipeline. It is completed in April 2017 and delivers its first oil in May 2017.

The impoverishment of Indian Country is a design feature of the United States—from first contact to the present—rather than an unintended consequence of progress.
That is, policies of colonial powers and the U.S. government intentionally pursued
NAP Generation Indigenous Educational FunderTour at Standing Rock. Source: Native Americans in
Philanthropy

enrichment of Europeans and people of European descent at the expense of Native
communities through confiscating Native lands and awarding them to
non-Natives, committing massacre, introducing disease, or inflicting other traumas.
These policies devastated Native economies and, more importantly, denied Native
people their very right to exist. Systemic inequities continue to this day. Native people
have battled the odds to overcome centuries of oppression, and to find ways to thrive
and prosper—usually with little or no support from broader society.
—Kevin Walker, president and CEO, Northwest Area Foundation10

11

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESFOUNDATION FUNDING FOR
NATIVE AMERICANSMETHODOLOGY
Step 1: Data collection
Candid collects data about foundations and public charities primarily from:• IRS Forms 990 and 990-PF• Direct reporting by funders• Foundation websites• Collaborations with partner organizations

Step 2: Auto-coding and review
Grants in our database are machine-coded according to our Philanthropy Classification System (taxonomy.foundationcenter.org).11
They are coded according to the following facets:• Subject/issue area

• Population group served• Type of support provided• Geographic area served

Currently, we manually review machine-assigned codes for grants of $250,000 or more made by 1,000 of the largest U.S. foundations as well as grants madefor select projects. Foundations that report their data directly to us may also apply codes to their grants.

Step 3: Identifying grants explicitly benefiting Native American communities and causes
Population codes may be assigned to the recipient organization record and/or to the grant record. For this study, we looked at population codes for American
Indians (in the U.S.), Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians in either the grant or recipient record. Here are guidelines for how codes are typically assigned:

Grant description or recipient mission
explicitly references Native American
communities or causes

Grant description or recipient mission
explicitly references racial andethnic diversity

Grant description or recipient
mission makes no mention of
beneficiary populations

EXPLICIT BENEFIT

POSSIBLE BENEFIT

IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL

Receives Native American code

Does NOT receive Native American code

Does NOT receive Native American code

Grants may explicitly benefit Native Americans AND
other specific population groups.

12

It is possible that Native Americans implicitly benefit,
but we cannot apply the code without additional information.

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESStep 4: Funder outreach
For this analysis, to ensure that our data was as comprehensive and accurate as possible, we also contacted 61 funders to confirm that their grantmaking
for Native Americans was captured and coded correctly in our database. We received responses from 35 funders:Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Arcus Foundation
Better Way Foundation
Blandin Foundation
Bush Foundation
Christensen Fund
CIRI Foundation
Colorado Plateau Foundation
Conrad N. Hilton Foundation

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Marin Community Foundation

PRBB Foundation

Groundswell Fund

McKnight Foundation

Rosenberg Foundation

Henry Luce Foundation

Meyer Memorial Trust

Russell Family Foundation

Indian Land Tenure Foundation

Minneapolis Foundation

Swift Foundation

James Irvine Foundation

Northwest Area Foundation

The California Endowment

Kalliopeia Foundation

Northwest Health Foundation

Tides Foundation

Kendeda Fund

Notah Begay III Foundation

Wells Fargo

Lannan Foundation

NoVo Foundation

W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Margaret A. Cargill Foundation

Otto Bremer Trust

Step 5: Data analysis
Analyses in this report come from two datasets.

Research set: 2002–2016 funding trends
To analyze foundation funding trends over time, Candid uses its annual research set, which contains grants of $10,000 or more awarded by a consistent setof 1,000 of the largest U.S. community, corporate, independent, and operating foundations. Depending on how data was collected, it may reflect the paid
amount or the authorized amount. For community foundations, discretionary grants are included, along with donor-advised grants when provided by thefoundation. To avoid double counting of grants, grants to grantmakers in the dataset are excluded when calculating aggregate figures. The research set
excludes loans, grants to individuals, and program- and mission-related investments.

Candid’s database: 2015 and 2016 analyses
Candid’s database is growing and contains an increasing number of grants by smaller foundations, grantmaking public charities, and non-U.S. grantmakers.
For a closer look at grantmaking for Native communities and causes in 2015 and 2016, we based the analysis on Candid’s broader database. Data wasretrieved on May 28, 2019. This dataset includes grants from the annual research set, smaller awards (less than $10,000), and grants from a wider variety offunders. Similar to the research set, the grants may be paid or authorized. For community foundations, discretionary grants are included, along withdonor-advised grants when provided by the foundation. To avoid double counting of grants, grants to grantmakers in the dataset are excluded. This dataset
also excludes loans, grants to individuals, and program- and mission-related investments.

Why do some figures in this report differ from previous reports?
There are some differences in data reported here compared with Foundation Funding for Native American Issues and Peoples (2011) and Growing Inequity:
Large Foundation Giving to Native American Organizations and Causes (2018). Periodically, as changes are made to the Candid database, the research set isrecreated to account for those updates, which may result in a shift in numbers. In addition, for this report’s analysis, we conducted a closer review of grants
coded for Native American populations and did some additional cleaning of the data.

PHILANTHROPIC FUNDING TRENDS SINCE 1990

At the founding meeting of Native
Americans in Philanthropy (NAP) in
1990, William Brescia reported thatless than 0.2 percent of foundation
funding had supported Native
American causes over the previous
four years.12

13

A 2005 report by
Sarah Hicks andMiriam Jorgensen
examinedfunding from1989 to 2002 anddemonstrated
that large U.S. foundations generallycommitted between 0.2 and
0.3 percent of total funding to
Native causes and concerns. Funding
increased to 0.5 percent in 1996, but
this was not the norm, and funding
subsequently declined.13

In 2011, Native
Americans in
Philanthropy
and Foundation
Center (nowCandid)published areport establishing that grantmaking
for Native Americans had declined
over the previous 10 years and wasparticularly negatively impacted by
the Great Recession.14
Foundation Funding for
Native American
Issues and Peoples

The Foundation Centerin cooperation withNative Americans in Philanthropy

Most recently,
in 2018, First
Nations
Development
Institutereporteddecreased
and wide fluctuations in funding for
Native causes. The report importantly
identified that the majority of grant
dollars were awarded to non-Nativecontrolled nonprofit organizations.15
Growing Inequity:

Large Foundation Giving

to Native American Organizations and Causes| 2006-2014 |INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESPHILANTHROPIC FUNDING TRENDS, 2002–2016

0.4%

Average share of annual
grant dollars explicitly
benefiting Native
Americans, 2002–2016

SHARE OF OVERALL FOUNDATION FUNDING
Share of foundation funding explicitly benefiting Native Americans
.59%

.59%

.58%

.59%

.53%
.54%

.52%

.49%

.49%

.51%

.49%

.37%
.38%

.30%
2005

2006

2007

.49%

.52%

.39%

.51%

.52%

.41%

.46%

2015

2016

.38%

% of grant dollars
2004

.52%

.38%

% of grants

2003

.50%

.41%

.45%

2002

.51%

2008

2009

.31%
2010

.31%
2011

2012

2013

2014

Over a 15-year period, from 2002 to 2016, large U.S. foundations gave an average

Some have argued that philanthropic funding for Native Americans should be,of 0.4 percent of total funding to Native American communities and causes. The

at a minimum, commensurate with the proportionate size of the population in

proportion ranged from a high of 0.6 percent in 2006 to a low of 0.3 percent in

the U.S.16 The American Indian and Alaska Native population (including those of2009, 2010, and 2014. The share of number of grants awarded was more stable

more than one race) represented 2 percent of the total U.S. population in 2016,17

from year to year and averaged 0.5 percent.

and the population is increasing at a faster rate than the total U.S. population.18

FLUCTUATIONS IN FUNDING
Foundation funding explicitly benefiting Native Americans$143M

Current dollars$131M

Constant 2002 dollars

$83M

14

$88M

$83M
$64M

2002

$114M

2003

$99M

$58M

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

$64M

$67M

2009

2010

$89M

$89M

$93M

2011

2012

2013

$83M

2014

2015

2016

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESA common critique of philanthropic funding for Native communities and causes

2016. However, adjusted for inflation (in constant dollars), the gains in recent

has been its variability from year to year.19 Years with more funding are usually

years are more modest and are comparable to funding 10 years earlier, in 2006.

followed by a dip the following year. Some of this may be due, in part, to theGiven past volatility, it remains to be seen if the gains in 2015 and 2016 are part

dataset itself (see the section on p. 16 on multi-year awards). However, theseof a larger trend of increased funding or a sign of continued variability.

fluctuations do not appear as dramatically in overall philanthropic trends.
And, smoothing out some of the volatility by analyzing the data in three-year

The 2018 report by First Nations Development Institute highlighted theperiods still reveals inconsistent funding over time.

implications of these fluctuations: “The consequence of this volatility forcommunity organizations is instability in predicting revenue, which then leads

There does appear to be a recent increase in grant dollars for Native American

to instability in organizational growth, development and programming, as wellcommunities and causes, with 2015 and 2016 seeing the highest levels ofas other negative organizational outcomes.”20

funding. Large foundations awarded $131.5 million in 2015 and $143.1 million in

33%

FUNDING THAT BENEFITS MULTIPLE POPULATIONS

Grant dollars exclusively
benefiting Native
AmericansFoundation funding explicitly benefiting Native Americans$300M

Grant dollars benefiting Native Americans +other ethnic/racial groups

Grant dollars exclusively benefiting
Native Americans
$224M

$200M
$100M
$0

$190M

$184M

$163M

$139M
$66M

$95M

2002–2004

2005–2007

$66M

$86M

2008–20102011–2013

No. of grants benefiting Native Americans +other ethnic/racial groups$133M
2014–2016

No. of grants exclusively benefiting
Native Americans

2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0

1,617 grants

1,659 grants

580 grants

708 grants

826 grants

2008–20102011–20132014–2016

1,455 grants

1,519 grants

1,603 grants

631 grants

643 grants

2002–2004

2005–2007

It is important to note that many grants in this analysis support multiple racial

to determine what proportion of the full grant amount benefits the Nativeand ethnic population groups, in addition to Native Americans. For example,

American population, specifically. Instead, we include the entire amount inin 2006 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation awarded $8 million toward

our analysis.

the endowment of the Robert Wood Johnson Center for Health Policy at the
University of New Mexico. According to the grant description, the center aims

The charts above distinguish between grants that were explicitly designatedto contribute to national health policies by “increasing number of Hispanic

to benefit Native Americans, among other racial and ethnic groups, and thoseand Native American scholars who can engage in the health care policy debatethat were exclusively designated to benefit Native Americans, and no otheras leaders.”

racial and ethnic group. Of total funding for Native Americans, approximately
33 percent of grant dollars and 30 percent of grants from 2002 to 2016 were

Because this grant identifies an explicit focus on Native American scholars,

exclusively designated to benefit only Native American communities and causes.

it is included in our analysis. It is impossible, given the information we have,

15

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESSHARE OF FOUNDATIONS THAT SUPPORT NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES AND CAUSES
On average, 20 percent of large U.S. funders award grants explicitly designatedto benefit Native American communities and causes. This has remained
consistent over the past 15 years, ranging from 19 to 21 percent each year. Amongthese funders, nearly half (48 percent on average) give only one Native-focused
grant each year. The median number of grants distributed by funders explicitly
benefiting Native Americans every year is either one or two. This means thateven among funders who provide grants explicitly benefiting Native Americans,the funding largely seems to be incidental, without a dedicated focus orintention on the part of the foundation.
Explicit funding for Native Americans does not appear to be a priority for thevast majority of large foundations, and efforts to increase funding will require
greater engagement. Gabrielle Strong (Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Oyate) ofMargaret A. Cargill Philanthropies remarks, “There is a large, moveable audiencethat is hungry for good resources, education, and learning opportunities. We
need to reach this moveable audience.”

1,000

Large U.S. foundations

20%

Award at least one grant
explicitly benefiting
Native Americans

MULTI-YEAR AWARDSIn Candid’s database, grant dollars each year may reflect either the paid or theauthorized amount reported by the funder, depending upon how the data wascollected. Data from 990 tax forms (from which we collect most of our data)
reflects paid amounts, but funders who directly share their data with Candid
may choose to report authorized awards. In our analysis, the full amount of an
authorized award is attributed to the year in which it is made, even if it is paidout across multiple years.
Most multi-year grants in this analysis tended to be two- or three-year awards,
though there are exceptions. The Northwest Area Foundation, for example,
awarded a couple of 10-year grants. The inclusion of multi-year awards
undoubtedly contributes to some of the fluctuations in funding from year toyear. Still, as noted above, even when smoothing out some of this variability
by analyzing the data in three-year periods, there remains variability
in funding over time—and in a manner that does not occur for overall
grantmaking in philanthropy.

Navajo Native American sisters in Monument Valley Tribal Park. Source: Getty Images

16

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESA CLOSER LOOK AT PHILANTHROPIC INVESTMENTS
IN 2015 AND 2016

$493.8M

Total grant dollars
explicitly benefiting Native American
communities and causes
Beyond Candid’s research set of grantmaking by 1,000 large U.S. foundations
each year, Candid’s database includes a wider set of grants, including smaller
grants made by small- and mid-sized foundations and public charities.

12,310

2,131

2,586

$2,758GrantsRecipientsMedian grant size

Grantmakers

Including these investments allows for a more complete picture of thephilanthropic landscape. Funding from this data set includes $271.6 million in2015 and $222.1 million in 2016. Similar to the previous section, data includes
grants that benefit multiple population groups. (See p. 15 for a more detailed

Source: Candid, 2019. Intermediary organizations and community foundations may be represented
in the count of both grantmakers and recipients. However, the dollar amount and number ofgrants represent unique totals and exclude double counting.

explanation and p. 25 for a breakdown of how much of total grantmaking in 2015
and 2016 was directed exclusively to benefit Native Americans.)

TOP FOUNDATIONS BY GRANT DOLLARS EXPLICITLY BENEFITING NATIVE AMERICANS, 2015 AND 2016
Foundation (excludes public charities)

State

Amount% Total dollars awarded

No. of grants

1

W.K. Kellogg FoundationMI$ 52,549,941

8.9

101

2

NoVo Foundation

NY

28,016,062

4.7

94

3

Margaret A. Cargill Foundation

MN

22,852,167

3.9

52

4

Bush Foundation

MN

14,286,573

2.4

67

5

Northwest Area Foundation

MN

12,437,976

2.1

69

6

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

NY

11,825,500

2.0

14

7

Ford Foundation

NY

11,550,000

2.0

14

8

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

WA

10,778,223

1.8

11

9

Lilly Endowment Inc.

IN

10,270,400

1.7

7

10

The California Endowment

CA9,820,352

1.7

98

11

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

CA

9,283,044

1.6

8

12

Rasmuson Foundation

AK

8,567,718

1.5

103

13

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

NJ

7,855,126

1.3

28

14

The Christensen FundCA

4,033,350

0.7

48

15

Kalliopeia Foundation

CA4,014,875

0.7

54

Source: Candid, 2019. Excludes grantmaking public charities. Includes grants awarded to grantmaking intermediaries. Percentages are based on the total that includes grants awarded to
grantmaking intermediaries.

17

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESMost philanthropic giving explicitly benefiting Native American communities

Wells Fargo was the largest corporate donor, awarding $3.9 million throughand causes came from a relatively small number of donors. The top 20 donors

207 grants, through the company foundation as well as its corporate giving(including foundations and public charities) awarded 58 percent of total funding

program. The company, in conversations with Candid and Native Americans infor Native Americans. The top 15 foundations (excluding grantmaking public

Philanthropy, determined grants for inclusion in this analysis based on granteecharities; see table on p. 17), awarded 37 percent of total funding.

reporting of populations served: Any grant in which more than 50 percent of the
population served was Native American was included in the analysis.

The top funder was the Michigan-based W.K. Kellogg Foundation, who awarded$52.5 million through 101 grants over the two-year period. The foundation,

The largest community foundations to give to Native communities anda long-time supporter of Indian Country, funded a variety of projects, fromcauses were the Silicon Valley Community Foundation ($1.6 million), Santa Fe

strengthening local food systems in Native American communities to increasing

Community Foundation ($1.5 million), and the California Community Foundation

access to quality oral health care through alternative workforce models. The($1.4 million).

foundation also awarded a $2.4 million multi-year general support grant to the
National Congress of American Indians, to enable the organization to achieve
its mission to serve as a forum for unified policy development among American
Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments.

GRANTMAKING PUBLIC CHARITIES
Public charities differ from foundations in that they provide direct services orother tax-exempt activities, and they receive grants from individuals, government,
and private foundations. Some also award grants and are referred to as regranters
or intermediaries.
Candid’s database indicates that 290 public charities provided $201.8 million in
grants for Native American communities and causes in 2015 and 2016. The
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, American Indian College Fund, and First
Nations Development Institute were among the larger Native-led grantmaking
public charities.
The Tides Foundation awarded $26.2 million through 452 grants, supporting
Indigenous communities through grants not only to nonprofit organizations, butalso directly to Native tribes and to state governments in areas of work that benefit
Native peoples. In 2016, it provided grants to 76 different tribes in 22 states.
According to Giving USA, when it comes to charitable giving, individuals andhouseholds give far more than foundations. With the growth in popularity ofdonor-advised funds, it is not surprising that grantmaking for Native Americanorganizations also came through these funds. We were able to identify at least$9.9 million distributed by Fidelity Charitable through 3,030 grants, based onrecipient organizations with missions focused on Native Americans. There may
likely be additional funding, but we were not able to identify them with the data

Source: Kisha Bari

available. More information is also needed to understand the giving patterns ofindividual donors and identify opportunities for greater engagement with Native
American communities and causes.

18

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESTOP RECIPIENTS BY GRANT DOLLARS EXPLICITLY BENEFITING NATIVE AMERICANS, 2015 AND 2016
Recipient organization

State

Amount% Total dollars awarded

No. of grants

1

Native American Heritage Association

VA$34,038,353

6.9

151

2

Education TrustDC

18,557,464

3.8

36

3

American Indian College FundCO

16,254,967

3.3

838

4

First Nations Development InstituteCO

14,790,723

3.0

87

5

Eiteljorg Museum of American Indian and Western Art

IN

12,066,030

2.4

102

6

Cook Inlet Housing Authority

AK

8,434,563

1.7

10

7

DNA-Peoples Legal Services

AZ

7,307,961

1.5

11

8

National Congress of American IndiansDC

7,065,788

1.4

13

9

Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples

CA

6,746,352

1.4

53

10

Asian and Pacific Islander American Health ForumCA

6,593,493

1.3

30

11

Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation

SD

6,326,077

1.3

56

12

Southcentral Foundation

AK6,247,789

1.3

9

13

Utah Legal Services

UT

6,050,844

1.2

17

14

Rehoboth Christian School Association

NM

5,854,765

1.2

78

15

Native American Youth and Family Center

OR5,275,854

1.1

81

Source: Candid, 2019. Includes grants awarded to grantmaking intermediaries. Percentages are based on the total that includes grants awarded to grantmaking intermediaries.

Among the largest recipients of funding, some are exclusively focused on

to non-Native-controlled organizations. The majority of large, multi-year grants

Native communities, like the American Indian College Fund or First Nations

were also directed to non-Native-controlled recipient organizations.22

Development Institute. Others serve multiple populations—for example, theAsian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum serves Asian Americans andThere are examples of foundations that are intentional in their giving to Native-

Pacific Islanders, as well as Native Hawaiians. Among all recipients of funding,

led organizations. The Northwest Area Foundation commits 40 percent of grant

42 percent could be identified as having an explicit and exclusive focus on

dollars to Native-led organizations, publicly recognizing that “the wealth of our

Native communities and causes and not on other racial/ethnic groups.

region is rooted in Native lands and communities—and we’re committed to both
acknowledging and honoring that history.”23

The 2013 report Native Voices Rising: A Case for Funding Native-led Change
encouraged greater investment in Native-led organizations, particularly for

The collaborative fund Native Voices Rising, jointly led by Native Americans

grassroots advocacy and organizing efforts, to “promote self-determinationin Philanthropy and Common Counsel Foundation, awards grants to Native-

and the ability to develop and seek our own vision of change.”21 We performed

led organizations in American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian

website research to determine that 8 of the top 15 grant recipients in 2015 andcommunities. Grantees are “rooted in a Native community, led by Native people,

2016 are Native-led organizations, having identified a Native president/director

hold a vision for change that improves the lives of Native community members,

or a majority Native board. First Nations Development Institute did a moreengage the community to take action together, and/or seek to affect the policies

comprehensive review of funding for Native-controlled nonprofit organizations

and rules that govern the community.”24

from 2006 to 2014 and found that the majority of all grant dollars were awarded

19

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESGRANT DOLLARS EXPLICITLY BENEFITING NATIVE AMERICANS BY ISSUE AREA, 2015 AND 2016
Issue area

Amount% Total dollars awarded

No. of grants

Culture and arts

$136,325,842

27.6

2,486

Education

115,840,612

23.5

4,031

Health

85,546,742

17.3

903

Human services

82,518,043

16.7

3,129

Community and economic development

75,038,020

15.2

1,215

Human rights

50,352,624

10.2

862

Environment

36,157,342

7.3

983

Public affairs

34,886,442

7.1

526

Public safety

33,709,545

6.8

409

Information and communications

13,519,892

2.7

216

This reflects funderpriority issue areas, basedon available data; it does
not necessarily reflect thepriorities and needs ofNative communities.

Source: Candid, 2019. Grants may address multiple issue areas (e.g., education and health) and may therefore be counted in more than one category.
Excludes grants to grantmaking intermediaries.

Funding for Native American communities and causes addresses a variety of

RECLAIMING NATIVE TRUTH
In 2016, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation awarded a two-year $2.5 million
grant to the First Nations Development Institute, to “transform theenforced invisibility of, and racist narratives about, Native Americans.”Through this grant, with additional funding partners, First Nations
Development Institute and Echo Hawk Consulting launched
Reclaiming Native Truth. This unprecedented national research effort
produced the first-ever market study about public perceptions anddominant narratives impacting Native peoples in the United States.
The research concluded that:(28 percent), followed by education (24 percent) and health (17 percent).
Although foundation strategies are often focused on discrete issues, it isimportant to note that for Native communities, the work is interrelated. “Indeed,
it is incomprehensible to some tradition-oriented Native people that foundations
do not use an interdisciplinary approach to fund projects in tribal communities
given the tribal philosophy of everything being inter-connected,” according to thereport Context Is Everything, published by One Fire Development.25
The New York–based NoVo Foundation is an example of a funder looking at• The majority of Americans know little to nothing about
Native Americans

their work with Indigenous communities holistically, operating across multiple• Many Americans are informed by stereotypes and myths

girls, and the earth; women’s leadership; and healing from historical trauma• Invisibility is one of the biggest barriers Native peoples face inadvocating for tribal sovereignty, equity, and social justiceand oppression. Hester Dillon (Cherokee Nation) of NoVo Foundation states,

The research also illuminated hopeful pathways to move forward:

areas, including education; cultural expression; ending violence against women,“These areas are interconnected in terms of the holistic world view of Indigenous
peoples. Violence against Native girls and women comes from violence against
the earth. Fossil fuel extraction disrupts the planet herself, and where that• 78 percent of Americans are interested in learning more about
Native cultures

disruption occurs we also see higher rates of violence against women, not just• 72 percent of Americans support significant changes toK-12 curricula to ensure that schools teach accurate Native
history and culture

against the earth, there’s also harm against women in those vicinities.”

The initiative led to the creation of two message guides, one for Native
peoples and organizations and another for Native allies, to advancenarrative change. Geneva Wiki (Yurok) of The California Endowment
describes these resources as an invaluable tool to “frame the story ofIndian Country to bring people with you and to move their hearts andminds.” Building from this work, the nonprofit IllumiNative was formed toincrease the visibility of Native Nations and peoples in American society.

20

issue areas. More than a quarter of grant dollars were for culture and arts

in Indigenous communities, but against women in general. Where there’s harmSome grants in the analysis do, in fact, reflect multiple issue areas. For example,
the W.K. Kellogg Foundation awarded the National Congress of American Indians$3.6 million in 2016 to “support the healthy development of Native youth, bycoordinating efforts to transform the systems that have the greatest impact on
Native youth and families—systems of governance, child welfare, education andhealth.” In Candid’s database, this grant was coded for education, health, humanrights, and human services.

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESGRANT DOLLARS EXPLICITLY BENEFITING NATIVE AMERICANS BY SUPPORT STRATEGY, 2015 AND 2016
Support strategy

Amount% Total dollars awarded

No. of grants$274,701,316

55.6

4,770

General support

71,789,680

14.5

3,888

Policy, advocacy, and systems reform

71,606,291

14.5

557

Capacity building and technical assistance

47,614,186

9.6

384

Individual development and student aid

22,122,662

4.5

408

Capital and infrastructure

18,503,241

3.7

237

Research and evaluation

17,418,035

3.5

134

Network building and collaboration

16,777,307

3.4

238

Publishing and productions

14,717,387

3.0

173

Financial sustainability

13,453,915

2.7

135

Public engagement and marketing

11,078,479

2.2

150

Leadership and professional development

10,752,460

2.2

74

Program development

14.5%

Grant dollars forgeneral support

Source: Candid, 2019. Grants may have multiple support strategies and may therefore be counted in more than one category. A support strategy could not be
determined for 15 percent of grant dollars. Excludes grants to grantmaking intermediaries.

The majority of grant dollars (56 percent) was directed toward programs. Nearly
15 percent of grant dollars went toward general support. Notably, general
support grants tended to be smaller than program grants: While the medianprogram grant was $7,500, the median general support grant was only $500.
“Funders are more comfortable providing specific project grants that fit thestrategic priorities of their organizations,” observes Martin Jennings (Leech
Lake Ojibwe) of the Northwest Area Foundation. “Program grants enable someshort-term, quantifiable outcomes, but, in many cases, these are not the sameoutcomes that Native communities and nonprofits would track as evidenceof change.”
The 2018 publication We Need to Change How We Think, by Frontline Solutions
and First Nations Development Institute, advocated for more general support
for Native organizations—“unrestricted, multi-year grants that allow leaders tobuild their organizations and make dynamic change.”26 This may be particularly
important for the Native nonprofit sector, which is far younger than the overall
nonprofit sector and has been described as being in an emerging state ofdevelopment, in need of more infrastructure and organizational capacity.
(For more about unrestricted support, please see p. 33.)
Approximately 15 percent of grant dollars went toward policy, advocacy, andsystems reform, and nearly 10 percent was for capacity building and technicalassistance. Grants in the dataset can have more than one support strategy.
For example, in 2015 the Kalliopeia Foundation awarded $75,000 to theMontana-based American Indian Institute for general support as well as

Thousands march during the first Indigenous Peoples March in Washington, D.C.

project support for the Indigenous Leaders Travel Fund.

21

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESPOPULATION GROUP
It can be difficult to determine how much funding addresses the intersections ofa three-year grant to Montana-based Native Action, to stop violence against

different identities when many grants lack robust descriptions. Still, 21 percent

women and girls and develop effective strategies for Indian tribes to respondof grant dollars for Native Americans could be identified as having an explicit

to this violence. In 2016, NoVo Foundation awarded $2.2 million for thefocus on children and youth. In 2016, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Spirit Aligned Leadership Program. Situated with fiscal sponsor Rockefeller

awarded $500,000 to the New Mexico–based Notah Begay III Foundation to

Philanthropy Advisors, the program “exists to heal, strengthen, and restore

support a national initiative to reduce childhood obesity in American Indianbalance within Indigenous communities, both rural and urban, throughcommunities through changes in policy and environments. Also, the Hawai’i-

appreciating and elevating the transformative leadership of Indigenous

based Harold K. L. Castle Foundation awarded $370,000 in organizational

women and girls.”

development and capacity building to Hui Mālama O Ke Kai Foundation, an
organization that operates an after-school program based on Native Hawaiian

Two percent of grant dollars were identified as focused on Native seniors. In

values and culture.

2016, Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies awarded $725,000 to the Universityof North Dakota to expand long-term services and support for Native elders

Native women and girls were the focus of 3 percent of grant dollars. The NoVoof Spirit Lake Nation through the Native Aging in Place Project. The Greater

Foundation, in particular, targeted grants to end violence against Native

Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources also allocates grants for aging services

American women and enhance their leadership. In 2015, the foundation awarded

to Indian tribes in Wisconsin.

FUNDING FOR LGBTQ NATIVE AMERICAN AND TWO-SPIRIT COMMUNITIES
2013$5,500 		

2014$7,7002015$20,000

2016$110,0002017$243,000$348,061$66,180

Two-Spirit people

LGBTQ Native Americans$67,500$201,750$29,500

Source: Funders for LGBTQ Issues, 2019. Funding for Two-Spirit people was identified based on a population code added in recent years. Funding for Two-Spirit people prior to this was
identified by reviewing grant descriptions.

Funders for LGBTQ Issues tracks funding for LGBTQ Native American and TwoSpirit communities, with data going back to 1970. The organization identified
nearly $1.1 million in funding for LGBTQ Native American and Two-Spirit
communities over a five-year period, from 2013 to 2017, stemming from 65 grants
from 24 foundations. The top two foundations, Ford Foundation and Arcus
Foundation, accounted for more than half of total funding. They were also the
only two funders to award more than $100,000 to LGBTQ Native American and
Two-Spirit communities during this period.
Given that the funding relies on a small number of grants from a small pool offunders, funding fluctuated significantly, reaching a high of more than $350,000
in 2013 and dipping below $100,000 in the following years. The 2013 peak was
driven by one large grant awarded by the Ford Foundation to the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, “for the Center for Civic Media to launch the Out for
Change Transformative Organizing Network to develop civic media strategies
and tools for advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, Two-Spirit rights.”
The increase in funding for Two-Spirit people in 2016 and 2017 was driven by
funding to organizations like the Montana Two Spirit Society and Bay Area
American Indian Two Spirits as well as larger organizations such as the WesternStates Center, for program work focused on Two-Spirit communities.

22

Though Two Spirit is often included under the umbrella of LGBTQ Native
Americans, historically, Two Spirit described Native people who fulfilled a
specialized gender-variant or third-gender role. They were an integral partof tribal social structures for generations, though their traditions begandisappearing as a result of colonization and stigma. Today, their role andtraditions are reviving, even as funding explicitly for Two-Spirit people ison the rise.
Still, comparatively, foundation funding for LGBTQ Native American and TwoSpirit communities has always been less than 1 percent of total LGBTQ funding.
“It’s tragic how small the funding figures are for LGBTQ Native American and
Two-Spirit communities,” said Lyle Matthew Kan, vice president of researchand communications at Funders for LGBTQ Issues. “But because it is so small,there is a huge opportunity for any funder looking to support this community tohave a significant impact. There is no shortage of challenges to fund, and there
are many assets in the LGBTQ Native American and Two-Spirit communities
to build on.”INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESGRANT DOLLARS EXPLICITLY BENEFITING NATIVE AMERICANS BY U.S. REGION, 2015 AND 2016
RegionNo. of foundations
awarding grants

Grants awarded

AI/AN
population *Grants received

Amount%No. of grants

Amount534$96,256,330

19.5

1,644

$105,720,620

21.4

1,263

2,191,624

Alabama

625,950<0.1

1085,5000.1

667,483

1.4

Arkansas

72,533,961

2.6

29

911,7100.9

559,7392.0

Delaware52

1,429,888

1.5

108

147,0630.1

19

12,969

1.3

District of Columbia

45

25,774,193

26.8

165

39,343,905

37.2

220

9,703

1.4

Florida91

4,698,501

4.9

243

337,8450.3

40211,292

1.0

Georgia30

4,134,884

4.3

94

150,1020.1

24

116,951

1.1

Kentucky

7

205,5950.2

11333,1360.3

437,738

0.8

Louisiana

6

153,0860.2

21401,6380.4

25

65,1171.4

Maryland34

1,768,306

1.8

85

6,890,520

6.5

96

79,508

1.3

Mississippi

1

250

<0.1

1

126,000

0.1

530,813

1.0

North Carolina

39

6,119,331

6.4

280

3,749,879

3.5

70

237,543

2.3

Oklahoma

56

3,201,088

3.3

135

9,263,667

8.8

290

543,189

13.8

South Carolina

9118,6770.1

13

196,9330.2

2455,7101.1

Tennessee

13

1,074,037

1.1

34

1,655,500

1.6

51

73,397

1.1

Texas

100

5,606,714

5.8

256

2,317,743

2.2

121

469,215

1.7

Virginia

37

39,410,869

40.9

158

39,799,704

37.6

260

106,386

1.3West Virginia

1

1,000

<0.1

1

9,775

<0.1

3

14,871

0.8

WEST

742

173,791,444

35.2

3,921

260,026,890

52.7

6,318

2,831,517

Alaska24

38,951,412

22.4

326

58,108,532

22.3

578

147,784

20.0

Arizona78

7,139,809

4.1

220

28,815,180

11.1

875

442,420

6.3

California

262

67,513,920

38.8

1,404

39,028,241

15.0

747

1,087,183

2.7

Colorado

62

14,275,972

8.2

305

12,202,120

4.7

338

152,990

2.7

Hawai’i

39

3,875,033

2.2

109

11,078,428

4.3

179

37,732

2.6

Idaho

11

430,3920.2

25

903,3770.3

6549,0892.9Montana

26

2,347,524

1.4

143

18,521,207

7.1

1,252

88,633

8.4

Nevada21

1,104,497

0.6

39864,7520.3

2481,621

2.7

New Mexico

41

8,544,234

4.9

257

47,151,260

18.1

1,221

254,857

12.2

Oregon41

7,172,602

4.1

250

15,336,008

5.9

384

142,128

3.4

Utah

42

2,818,866

1.6

83

10,155,162

3.9

198

70,324

2.3

Washington

84

19,551,718

11.3

737

17,554,954

6.8

407

254,982

3.4

Wyoming

11

65,465<0.1

23

307,6690.1

50

21,774

3.8

SOUTH

%

% Total state
population**

No. of grants

Continued on the next page

23

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESRegionNo. of foundations
awarding grants

Grants awarded

AI/AN
population *Grants received

Amount%No. of grants

Amount%% Total state
population**

No. of grants

NORTHEAST

553$74,041,289

15.0

1,849

$28,466,206

5.8

770

712,451

Connecticut

45

1,174,104

1.6

126

977,405

3.4

104

41,753

1.2

Maine

32

2,416,536

3.3

112

5,630,719

19.8

164

20,335

1.5

Massachusetts

85

4,231,403

5.7

360

7,324,738

25.7

188

72,7391.1

New Hampshire

8

140,1500.2

29

199,5130.7

52

12,137

0.9

New Jersey

57

7,852,962

10.6

196

1,291,219

4.5

18

101,996

1.1

New York

223

53,320,075

72.0

677

11,217,010

39.4

139

323,712

1.6

Pennsylvania

79

4,652,296

6.3

285

1,276,465

4.5

67

112,197

0.9

Rhode Island

18

208,5380.3

52

254,3870.9

20

19,641

1.9

Vermont

645,2250.1

12294,750

1.0

18

7,941

1.3

MIDWEST

576

146,828,183

29.7

4,880

99,538,975

20.2

3,959

1,060,193

Illinois

136

4,122,533

2.8

380

3,434,001

3.4

67

140,989

1.1

Indiana40

14,441,627

9.8

125

12,909,515

13.0

127

64,280

1.0

Iowa

20

638,0360.4

40

188,275

0.2

1132,390

1.0

Kansas10

66,419<0.1

161,028,659

1.0

20

68,775

2.4

Michigan49

50,491,881

34.4

223

2,549,623

2.6

55

156,268

1.6

Minnesota

121

62,297,645

42.4

926

28,739,225

28.9

678

121,327

2.2

Missouri30

455,5130.3

672,252,453

2.3

1785,282

1.4

Nebraska

32

1,223,974

0.8

149

3,293,597

3.3

165

41,8592.2

North Dakota

540,514<0.1

147,701,749

7.7

129

50,264

6.7

Ohio

59

8,291,966

5.6

2,715

1,984,704

2.0

75

104,904

0.9

South Dakota

22

2,651,695

1.8

92

28,705,475

28.8

2,454

90,636

10.4

Wisconsin

52

2,106,380

1.4

133

6,751,699

6.8

161

103,219

1.8

2,411

$493,752,691

100.0

12,310$493,752,691

100.0

12,3106,795,785

Total***

Source: Candid, 2019. Geographic regions are defined by the Office of Management and Budget.
*American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) population based on the U.S. Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race Alone or in Combination, and Hispanic Origin for the United States,
States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017, 2017 Population Estimates. Accessed July 15, 2019.
**Total state population based on the U.S. Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2017. Accessed July 15, 2019.
***Total number of foundations and grants awarded reflects one funder based in Puerto Rico and five funders based outside of the U.S., who awarded $2.8 million through 16 grants for Native American
communities and causes.

24

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESGIVING BY TRIBAL NATIONSTribal-affiliated grantmakers are important actors in the funding ecosystem,and the impact of their giving is felt not only by their members but also by
surrounding communities. Tribal grantmakers support tribal government
programs and Native nonprofits, as well as non-Native organizations. For
example, in February 2019, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians announced a$25 million award to Loma Linda University Children’s Hospital, the secondlargest gift ever to the California hospital.
Tribal grantmakers have a variety of structures. Some are 501(c)(3)organizations, others have funds within community foundations, and stillothers operate through formal and informal grantmaking committees.27
The CIRI Foundation is an example of a private tribal foundation, establishedby the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) Board of Directors in 1982. The mission of
the foundation is to promote individual self-development and economic selfsufficiency through education and to maintain pride in culture and heritage
among Alaska Natives who are original enrollees of the Cook Inlet region
and their descendants. Since its establishment, the foundation has awarded
more than $28 million for Alaska Native beneficiaries to participate in postsecondary education.28 This report’s analysis includes the CIRI Foundation’s
grants to nonprofit organizations, though not its grants to individuals.

The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) is a federally
recognized, sovereign nation with a formal grantmaking program that isorganized through the SMSC Business Council and the Sharing Resources
Work Group. Since the opening of its Gaming Enterprise in the 1990s,
the SMSC has donated more than $350 million to Native and non-Native
nonprofits, health care facilities, and local governments, in the spirit of
the Dakota tradition of wo’okiye (helpfulness).29 The SMSC’s grantmaking
has been directed toward arts and culture, community support, education,
economic development, health, veterans, and youth.
There is currently no systematic method in place to track tribal grantmaking.
The Washington Indian Gaming Association documented that Washington’stribes’ charitable giving totaled $7.8 million in 2009.30 And Oregon tribal
foundations gave more than $100.2 million from 1997 to 2014, according toFirst Nations Development Institute.31
We respect tribal data sovereignty, and we also invite tribal grantmakers
to partner with us to share their grantmaking stories, so that our
understanding of the philanthropic landscape includes their contributions.

FUNDING EXCLUSIVELY BENEFITING NATIVE AMERICANS, 2015 AND 2016
As mentioned earlier, this study examines grants explicitly benefiting Native

it is included in the analysis, but it overcounts grant dollars, since Native

American communities and causes. In many cases, these grants also identify

Hawaiians are not the sole beneficiaries.

other racial or ethnic populations as beneficiaries. For example, in 2016,
The California Endowment awarded $405,000 in operating support to Asian

If we are to examine grants exclusively benefiting Native Americans—without

Americans Advancing Justice to improve access to health and dental coveragereference to other racial or ethnic populations—it substantially reduces theand care for underserved Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacificoverall dataset, totaling $208.4 million (42 percent of the overall $493.8 million)

Islanders. Because this grant identifies an explicit focus on Native Hawaiians,

and 4,128 grants (34 percent of the overall 12,310 grants).

Foundation funding exclusively benefiting Native Americans, as a portion of total explicit funding, 2015 and 201625

$285.4M

Grant dollars benefiting
Native Americans + otherethnic/racial groups

8,182

No. of grants benefiting
Native Americans + otherethnic/racial groups$208.4M

Grant dollars
exclusively benefiting
Native Americans

4,128$493.8M

Total grant dollars

12,310No. of grants
exclusively benefiting
Native Americans
Total no. of grants

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESFUNDING EXPLICITLY BENEFITING ALASKA NATIVES, 2015 AND 2016

1,093

$101.6M

Total funding
explicitly benefiting
Alaska Natives

Total no. of grants
explicitly benefiting
Alaska Natives$58.1M

to Alaska-based
recipient organizations

to Alaska-based
recipient organizations

Top 5 issue areas

Amount578% Total dollars awarded

No. of grants

Health$23,877,552

23.5

97

Human services

23,089,341

22.7

259

Community and economic development

21,486,462

21.1

139

Culture and arts

19,657,658

19.3

205

Environment

12,749,022

12.5

161

Source: Candid, 2019. Grants may address multiple issue areas and may therefore be counted in more than one category.
Excludes grants to grantmaking intermediaries.

Grantmaking designated for Alaska Natives is included in the overall analysis
of funding for Native Americans. With Candid’s taxonomy, we are able todisaggregate data to examine funding specifically for Alaska Natives. We
identified $101.6 million in funding explicitly benefiting Alaska Natives(nearly 21 percent of total funding for Native Americans) through 1,093 grants.
Fifty-seven percent of grant dollars for Alaska Natives went to organizations
based in Alaska ($58.1 million).
The Anchorage-based First Alaskans Institute, for example, received$1.6 million through 22 grants, including $750,000 from the Oak Foundationin 2016. The grant supported a leadership development program as well as
the organization’s work “to foster and grow traditional values of reciprocity
and sharing, honoring elders, and promoting the stewardship of land andresources. [The grant] aims to give back to Alaska Native communities
through public policy fellowships, summer internships, and youth andelder gatherings.”

Ugiaqtag Wesley Aiken (Iñupiaq) of Utqiaġvik, Alaska was the elder keynote speaker at the2018 First Alaskans Institute Elders & Youth Conference. Source: First Alaskans Institute

26

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESFUNDING EXPLICITLY BENEFITING NATIVE HAWAIIANS, 2015 AND 2016

269

$32.3M

Total funding
explicitly benefiting
Native Hawaiians

Total no. of grants
explicitly benefiting
Native Hawaiians$11.1M179

to Hawai’i-based
recipient organizations

to Hawai’i-based
recipient organizations

Top 5 issue areas

Amount% Total dollars awarded

No. of grants

Culture and arts

$12,868,843

39.8

111

Health12,022,178

37.2

73

Human services

5,795,636

17.9

69

Community and economic development

5,536,942

17.1

32

Education

5,460,317

16.9

34

Source: Candid, 2019. Grants may address multiple issue areas and may therefore be counted in more than one category.
Excludes grants to grantmaking intermediaries.

Grantmaking designated for Native Hawaiians is included in the overall
analysis of funding for Native Americans. With Candid’s taxonomy, we
are able to disaggregate data to examine funding specifically for Native
Hawaiians. We identified $32.3 million in funding explicitly benefiting Native
Hawaiians (approximately 7 percent of total funding for Native Americans)through 269 grants. Thirty-four percent of grant dollars for Native Hawaiians
went to organizations based in Hawai’i ($11.1 million).
Ceres Trust awarded $15,000 to the Honolulu-based Hawai’i People’sFund, an organization that has been supporting grassroots socialchange movements in Hawai’i since 1972. The Hawai’i People’s Fund is anintermediary organization that supports groups that are often considered
too small, too new, or too controversial by traditional funding organizations.
Hawai’i People’s Fund directly involves community activists and leaders in
its philanthropic decision making, convening a 14-member grantmaking
committee to review proposals and make recommendations to the board.

Source: Hui Mālama i ke Ala ʻŪlili, a grantee of Hawai’i People’s Fund27

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESSNAPSHOT OF INVESTMENTS FROM 2017 TO THE PRESENT
Because of our reliance upon IRS Forms 990 and 990-PF for grantmaking data, 2016 is the most recent year for which we have comprehensive data on philanthropic
giving. Since then, funders have pledged or made major investments, some of which reflect positive shifts in how philanthropy partners with Native-ledorganizations and supports Native-led initiatives.
• In 2017, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded $2 million in• The W.K. Kellogg Foundation continued its investment in Native

general support to Potlatch Fund, a Native-led nonprofit andcommunities. In 2018, the foundation awarded $2 million to theregranting organization.

Rainmakers Investment Collaborative to increase impact investing inand improve access to capital by Native community development efforts• In 2017, Wallace Global Fund awarded the inaugural Henry A. Wallace

in Arizona and New Mexico; $1 million was a program-related investment

award to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for its resistance against theand $1 million was a companion grant. In 2019, the foundation awarded

Dakota Access Pipeline. The award was created “to lift up the extraordinary$1.8 million to the First Nations Development Institute to help Native

courage and will it takes to stand up to oppressive corporate and politicalcommunities build more equitable food systems.

power” and came with a $250,000 prize. The fund pledged an additional$1 million to support the tribe’s transition to renewable energy.
• Wells Fargo in 2017 made a $50 million commitment over a five-year period
to American Indian/Alaska Native communities to expand solar energy,• In 2019, Ford Foundation awarded $450,000 to the Generation Indigenous
Response Fund. The pooled fund, housed at The Minneapolis Foundationand co-led by Native Americans in Philanthropy, supports Native youth
organizing by Native-led nonprofits.

advance tribal home ownership, and build capacity for Native nonprofits.
The company consulted with Native businesses, nonprofits, and tribal
governments to develop and vet the commitment.
Native tribes also announced large commitments in recent years. It is not uncommon for tribes, particularly those with successful gaming operations, to be some of
the largest contributors to their local communities, including to non-Native communities.
• In 2019, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Better Way• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians awarded $1.75 million to the Highland

Foundation, with Casey Family Programs, established the Healthy Children,

Fire Department in 2018, $1.28 million to the University of California,

Healthy Nations Fund, dedicated to helping young Native children inRiverside in 2018 for Native American Student Programs, and $25 million to

Minnesota thrive in both reservation and urban settings. The fund awarded

the Loma Linda University Children’s Hospital in 2019.

$220,000 in grants to Native nonprofits and tribal governments.

Source: Native Americans in Philanthropy

28

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESWHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Though the data shows persistent underfunding for Native communities, it also provides insight into the changes we want to see in future data analyses. The following
are a few data indicators and trends that, moving forward, would reflect successful shifts in practice and greater commitment to building equity for Native communities.

Current data trends

What could greater commitment look like in the data?

While foundation funding for Native American communities and causes
increased in 2015 and 2016, adjusted for inflation, grant dollars only
managed to match prerecession levels. Native communities and causes
took a bigger hit during the recession than the sector overall andremain vulnerable to fluctuations in funding.

• Increased dollars to Indian Country, beyond keeping pacewith inflation

Twenty percent of large foundations give to Native communities
and causes. But even among this specific group, most give only one or
two grants.

• More funders investing in Native communities, particularly
Native-led organizations

Most grant dollars are for program support; general support grants arefar fewer and smaller than program grants. General operating support
is often viewed as essential for Native-led organizations to have theflexibility and autonomy to achieve their missions.

• Proportionately higher grantmaking for general support

Foundations define their work for Native communities differently. Somefreely assert that their grants benefit Native Americans, alongsidevirtually all racial and ethnic population codes. (For this analysis, wetended to exclude these grants because they seemed to indicate a lackof explicit focus on Native Americans.) Others identify grants benefiting
Native Americans based on the demographics of population served or
the intended beneficiaries. Most do not provide any information at all.

• Greater field-wide discussion and agreement about data standards• Steady, stable funding from year to year

• Funders giving intentionally, explicitly, and regularly to IndianCountry (i.e., giving more than one grant per year explicitly
benefiting Native Americans)• Increased median dollar of general support grants• Increased, consistent data sharing• Clear identification of funding to Native-led organizations,as opposed to funding to Native-serving organizations or for
Native causes

For practical ways
for funders to shift
practice, see p. 32.

29

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESINVESTING IN INDIAN COUNTRY:
BUSH FOUNDATION EVALUATES ITS DATA
Any analysis of philanthropic funding is only as good as thecoding and data behind it. But ask any program officer about their
methodology, and their answers will likely be different.
“What we found when we actually dug into our data is that the
numbers don’t always reflect reality—and it’s not necessarily
intentional,” says Carly Bad Heart Bull (Dakota/Muskogee Creek),
Native nations activities manager at the Bush Foundation. “Forexample, say we fund a school that checks all the boxes indicatingthat they serve every population group, but the school only
has one or two Native students. Is this really an investment inIndian Country?”
Discrepancies like this are not new. Analyzing grants that can be
identified as designated to benefit a specific community like Native
Americans, based on either the grant description or the recipientorganization’s mission, is seldom straightforward. Even for the BushFoundation, which has a strategic focus on Native communities,
it can be challenging to unpack which of its own grants serve
Native Americans.
The Bush Foundation has a specific Native Nation Building strategic
initiative, but their commitment to Indian Country extends beyond
this one program area to essentially all their work. In 2017, thefoundation decided to review and learn from their Native-focusedwork across all their program areas in order to better support
Native communities moving forward.
Bad Heart Bull and Erica Orton, the foundation’s learning &evaluation manager, were tasked with the strategic priority todemonstrate the foundation’s commitment to Indian Country and todevelop a report to make their investments in Native communities
more transparent. To get there, they knew they’d have to go
through an intensive process of reexamining their data to conduct
an accurate and thorough assessment of their funding. Bad Heart
Bull and Orton began looking back—way back—at decades of grantmemos, applications, and reports.
“Early on, we discovered there were many inconsistencies in how
data had been collected and coded. In order to paint a clear pictureof our funding over time, we had to understand how the work had
been coded over time,” explained Bad Heart Bull.

30

Attendees at a Bush Foundation event discuss the role of arts in culture in community
problem solving.

With data going back as far as 1970, they pulled boxes and foundfinancial records, but in many cases, it was unclear if grants wereserving the Native community. Orton had to cross-check records
with hand-written notes and typed correspondences to determine
if funding was truly serving Indian Country. Even with more recent
digitized data, they had a lot of information to clean through.
Although they could divide the data by categories like geographic
area served, racial/ethnic group served, and program area, some ofthese fields and the options within them changed over time, as did
the way program officers interpreted the fields.
Looking at all the years of data together, Bad Heart Bull and Orton
had to make a lot of judgment calls regarding intentional giving.
They decided they would not just accept how something had beencoded but would instead gather as much information as possible
to decide if a grant was truly serving Native communities. They
checked the coding against grant reports and grant proposals anddecided that where it just wasn’t clear, or if there was not enoughinformation, they would elect not to count the grant as explicit
funding for Indian Country. On the other hand, it was very clear
when grants did focus on Native communities.

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESWith the example of the school that marked that they served
all populations, the Bush Foundation decided this information
alone was not enough to code an organization as serving Native
communities or people. Without more information to show suchintentionality, they excluded those grants from their report.
As a result of making decisions like this, the Bush Foundation
realized the pool of funding could end up being smaller than theypreviously assumed. However, it was well understood within thefoundation that the purpose of the report was to paint the mostaccurate picture of funding that was possible.
Having given structure and methodology to cleaning and assessing
the data, the Bush Foundation published its findings in the2018 report Native Nations Investments. What they found wasthat intentional investment for Native peoples existed acrossmost program areas, not just within their Native Nation Building
initiative. For some programs, Native funding fluctuated or
decreased, while in others funding went up over the years.
“This proved to us that a specific Native program is not always
necessary in order to intentionally serve Native communities.
We hear funders say they wish they had a specific program for
Native peoples—but you can be intentional in targeting Native
communities within any number of existing program areas likeeducation, environment, or health,” said Bad Heart Bull.

As the Bush Foundation continues to evolve, they are using thefindings from this research to improve how they track demographic
information and the processes by which they code grants moving
forward. The Foundation initiated annual coding trainings in 2017and has since incorporated a lens specific to coding for Native
communities. Their first step was to develop a document thatclearly defined terminology, and then to walk program officers
through examples of how to code grants.
“By doing this we’ve figured out where we need to tighten up ourcodes in different areas. We are continuing to iterate and improve.
We need to keep asking ourselves, ‘If we aren’t sure about thiscoding, why is that? How do we need to change the language tomake sure we’re all coding things the same way?’ We need to keep
going back, encouraging staff to ask questions when they aren’tsure, and reviewing our work,” said Orton.
Bad Heart Bull, a proud member of the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe
in South Dakota, notes that this work does not have to be done by
Native people alone. Native people will understand nuances that
others may not, but the work can still happen by non-Native people
who are willing to ask questions and take the initiative to be better
informed about the communities they work with.
Building from the initial report, which was in part a historicalanalysis, they are determining how a regularly updated reporting
process might help them continue to better serve Native
communities and others. “We’re going to continue to think about
this for other population groups, including non-racial categories
like gender identity, veterans, people with disabilities, and thepeople experiencing homelessness,” continued Orton.
The Bush Foundation hopes this work encourages otherpractitioners to engage in a culture of intentionality with data.
Not everyone needs to conduct a historical analysis. As Bad Heart
Bull recommends, a starting place for any organization could be to“look at how you collect your data moving forward and how thatcan make a difference. Have conversations with staff and grantees
about definitions and be open to flexibility.”

Members of the Bush Foundation’s 2017 Native Education Advisory Group discuss thelandscape of Native education and promising strategies moving forward in the region.

31

Read the full case study at GrantCraft.

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESLEARNINGS FROM
THE FIELD
The quantitative data is important to understand how resources areallocated; equally important, however, is building collective knowledge inphilanthropy to improve practice. For this report and for the developmentof the Investing in Native Communities web portal, Native Americans
in Philanthropy and Candid conducted an informal survey and held
conversations with 20 allies and funders. We asked them to share examples

of successful work and practices in partnering with Native organizations andcommunities, examples of what has not worked as well, and how we can address
the major challenges to long-term funding for Indian Country. In this section,
we share some of their reflections about practices and approaches to help
philanthropy be more effective partners with Native communities.

MEETING PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE—LITERALLY
Going to reservations or to the offices of urban Indian organizations—rather than asking people to come to you or interacting byphone or email—demonstrates the respect that potential partners and grantees deserve. It helps to build trust and to deepen yourunderstanding as funders of the community you seek to serve and engage with.

—Sean Buffington, Henry Luce Foundation

Traveling to Native communities and hearing and learning directly from themcan be an impactful and invaluable experience. It is even better when this canhappen not only for select staff but broadly across the organization and among
the board. The Bush Foundation has “office hours” in and near Native nations
and communities, which provide opportunities for staff to connect face-to-facewith people across their region. Says Carly Bad Heart Bull (Dakota/Muskogee
Creek), “These meetings offer a chance for us to share our grant and program
information, as well as help us to better understand the challenges andopportunities that exist across our region.”
Several funders pointed out that gatherings that introduce funders, in asafe space, to Native leaders and to other funders have created meaningfulconnections. They have led to new funding relationships, while building peer
support. “Funders entering this space for the first time often find comfort in

STRENGTHENING THE CIRCLE
Strengthening the Circle is a cooperative effort of Hopa Mountain,
Seventh Generation Fund, Generations Indigenous Ways, Artemisia
Associates, and WolfStar PR. Together they provide peer-to-peer support
for Native nonprofit leaders in the Pacific Northwest, Northern Rocky
Mountains, and Great Plains to help them gain access to the resources
they need for their community initiatives. One way this is achieved isthrough Strengthening the Circle annual gatherings that bring Native
nonprofit leaders in dialogue with each other and with funders. Thesegatherings set the stage for greater understanding, mutual respect, andknowledge sharing. Funders engage in meaningful dialogue with Native
leaders and learn from their wisdom and needs. Many participate infollow-up site visits and funder tours as well.

joining other trusted funders already doing the work,” states Martin Jennings(Leech Lake Ojibwe) of the Northwest Area Foundation. “Programs like Hopa
Mountain’s Strengthening the Circle provide a powerful platform to connect
funders with one another and with Native organizations to build peer support
and capacity with Native nonprofit leaders.”

Strengthening the Circle. Source: Hopa Mountain32

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESADAPTING AND EVOLVING ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS AND PRACTICES
Cultural humility is important, as is adapting yourself as a funder rather than asking Native leaders and organizations toadapt themselves to you.									—Vanessa Daniel, Groundswell FundFoundations may be open to applications by Native organizations but find that

Some foundations are also addressing internal organizational awarenessfew apply— and wonder why. The reasons are rooted in history and context.

and changing internal practices and systems. The California Endowment, for“Institutional philanthropy for the most part is the product of affluent white

example, held a training for all staff and board, explaining how policies andmen, some of whom earned their wealth through business practices and/systems created current health disparities in California Indian Country. It wasor policies that were harmful to Native populations,” writes Edgar Villanueva

the first training of its kind for the foundation.

(Lumbee). “The lasting impact of colonization has resulted in the majorityof Native families in the United States living in dire poverty far from the

The Calgary Foundation hired Tim Fox as its vice president for Indigenous

ivory towers of philanthropy.”32 This tradition contributes to lack of access torelations to create a systems change strategy for Indigenous reconciliation

relationships with foundation staff, as well as hesitancy or even distrust inwithin the foundation. The Calgary Foundation is a Canadian community

engaging with foundations.

foundation, and although the Canadian context is different from that in the
United States, there are many parallel areas of work and lessons to be learned.

Many say that the onus is on foundations to identify and eliminate barriers.

The Calgary Foundation has hosted staff retreats and facilitated dialogue andDaniel from the Groundswell Fund describes, “This can mean making more time

activities around reconciliation. All staff at the foundation now set a goalfor calls and meetings and being open to a slower [pace] of communication …

specific to Indigenous reconciliation in their self-evaluations, alongside goals

through stories rather than a standard pitch. For super grassroots and nascentrelated to their job duties. Fox makes himself available to every staff member

organizations, it may mean being willing to take a proposal over the phone or, if

for one-on-one conversations about their goals and ensures that they receive

your institution requires a grant application, providing funding for a grant writerample access to opportunities to engage with Indigenous communities.

to help the organization write the grant.”

PROVIDING LONG-TERM GENERAL OPERATING SUPPORT TO NATIVE-LED ORGANIZATIONSWhen communities are at the center of the work being supported, provided some flexibility with long-term general operating
support, and allowed some time to do what they see needs to be done, the effects are incredible.
—Hester Dillon (Cherokee Nation), NoVo Foundation
The necessity of general support is a maxim in philanthropy. Long-term flexible

Long-term, flexible funding is particularly important to strengthen the Native

funding allows organizations to choose how they fulfill their missions. It

nonprofit sector, which is relatively young compared to the general nonprofit

enables them to be creative and responsive in addressing opportunities andsector. Martin Jennings of the Northwest Area Foundation observes, “Thereneeds as they arise. It demonstrates trust that they understand best how toare a handful of mature Native organizations that are 30 to 40 years old,

achieve their goals and meet the needs of the communities they serve.

but the majority have been in existence less than 20 years.” Historically, on

A commitment to long-term funding contributes to a relationship, rather thana reservation, the tribal government played a governmental, business, andbeing merely a transaction. Conversely, year-to-year funding drains resources

nonprofit role. Jennings notes that Native nonprofits began to be created afterfor grantees (e.g., time spent on reporting and reapplying) and contributes tothe relocation era, after U.S. policies incentivized Native Americans leaving theirorganizational instability.

traditional lands for urban areas (see more about the Indian Relocation Act of1956 on p. 10). Jennings adds, “The Native nonprofit sector is still in an emerging

Dillon describes a Native language immersion school that, with general support

state of development. The sector needs more investment in field building,over a few years, developed a board game, which is now being used more

infrastructure, and organizational capacity.”broadly to teach even more people the language. Or, a women’s shelter that,with general support, renovated a home, giving women a place for gardening,
sewing, cooking, and canning. This facility has contributed to their healing while
also enabling them to sell items and generate income.

33

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESSUPPORTING NATIVE-LED SOLUTIONSSupport and partnerships are most effective when Native Nations and Indigenous peoples are driving the solutions andstrategies ... on issues that they have identified as a priority.

—Vicky Stott (Ho-Chunk), W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Conversely, funders do more harm through top-down, hierarchical

For Tim Fox (Blackfoot) and the Calgary Foundation, supporting Native-led

approaches that impose solutions onto communities. Often, these arework means “listening to communities and being informed by the project“undergirded by deficit frameworks that … perpetuate narratives about

applications that come across our table, instead of measuring ‘fit’ based on our

Indigenous peoples that are harmful and lead to underinvestment,”

processes and priority areas.” Fox states that the work is most successful whenobserves Stott.

Native assets, Native aspirations, and Native-defined needs are at the centerof the work.

In addition, practices that are effective in one community may notnecessarily work in another. “One of the challenges philanthropy has faced

Louis Gordon (Xicano/Purépecha) of the Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous

in funding Native communities has been an overreliance on best practices

Peoples describes his organization’s priority: “The number one question forthat are coming from the field, which is dominated by western worldviews,”

us is whether the project is initiated by, led by, and totally controlled by thesays Martin Jennings. “This can lead to a misalignment of values, practices,

community that it impacts. That’s the most important bottom line for us. We

and outcomes that serves neither the funder nor communities. Taking theseek out the hope and optimism in Native communities. We find the people thattime to understand communities’ values and worldviews and then co-understand their own communities and nations, and we support those who are

creating programming and evaluation with them can lead to strengthened

taking it upon themselves to make things better for their own people.”relationships and better outcomes.”

PARTNERING WITH NATIVE REGRANTING INSTITUTIONSNative-led intermediaries are important partners in this work. Pass-through grants to intermediaries are particularly beneficial
when relationships aren’t yet established. 							 —Elyse Gordon, Philanthropy Northwest
Native intermediaries play an important role in philanthropy, often serving

Native-led community development financial institutions (CDFIs) are also an

as a bridge between foundations and implementing organizations. They

option. Historically, Native communities have lacked access to capital—or evencan be a valuable resource, particularly for smaller foundations, thosebasic banking services.33 Native CDFIs provide financial capital, assistance,with shorter funding time frames, and those new to this work. Nativeeducation, and training for entrepreneurs, businesses, families, and tribal

regranters are grounded in the communities they serve and have existing

governments. Impact investors and foundations, like the Northwest Area

relationships. They are aware of cultural nuances and historical context

Foundation, partner with Native CDFIs to empower Native communities tothat non-Native funders may not be attuned to and can offer valuablebuild local economies in Indian Country. Kevin Walker of the Northwest Area

wisdom and guidance. For funders who are unsure of their ability toFoundation describes CDFIs as “weavers, connecting families, communities,

make a long-term commitment, it is recommended to support a Nativeand entrepreneurs to the resources necessary to bring dreams to life forintermediary. Short-term funding, while helpful, can be disruptive to

multiple generations.”34

communities, whereas Native intermediaries are committed to theircommunities for the long haul.

34

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESGROUNDING THE WORK IN YOUR MISSION
What is your foundation’s reason for being? Why do you exist? Whatever the mission is, Indigenous peoples might be integral to it.
—Eva Friesen, Calgary Foundation
Funding Native communities does not require a change in strategy or thestatement,” says Sean Buffington. “But our mission informs an approach that hascreation of a new program. “Organizations don’t have to shift their mission

applications to a wide range of communities.” The foundation decided to launchor priorities in order to be inclusive of Native communities,” states Carlya fellowship program for Native leaders in order to leverage the impact of the

Bad Heart Bull of the Bush Foundation. “They can fund Indian Country, no

new program by focusing it on a specific community.

matter what their program areas are. Whether it’s health, the environment,or education, these are all areas where Native communities should be

Eva Friesen describes the origins of the Calgary Foundation’s Indigenous work:

funded, and where there’s a need.” Edgar Villanueva agrees: “Whatever“Calgary Foundation’s reason for being is to create a city where everyone

issue you care about, there’s a Native-led organization doing that work.

belongs. At a community foundation national conference, the governor general

Find them and build a relationship.”invited us to extend the value of our work to those not presently served bycommunity foundations. We thought about what community is not currently well

Connecting the work to the foundation’s mission is how some foundations

served and identified Indigenous peoples.” She encourages other foundations

began new Native-specific initiatives. The mission of the Henry Luceto start with their purpose: “There’s a segment of the population that isn’t being

Foundation, for example, centers on innovative scholarship and cultivating

reached. Look at why you exist, and get better at your reason for existing.”

new leaders. “Indigenous communities are not singled out in our mission

35

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESPUTTING LEARNING INTO PRACTICE
For funders that are interested in taking the next step but are not sure whereto start, we suggest four commitments to strengthen partnerships with Native
organizations and communities: 1) learn about Native peoples and theirwith peer funders that have relationships in Indian Country; 3) evaluate yourorganization’s practices; and 4) begin funding. We also provide resources to help
you in your journey.

history; 2) build relationships with Native communities and nonprofits andCOMMIT TO LEARNING ABOUT NATIVE PEOPLES AND THEIR HISTORY
Native voices and stories are largely missing in school textbooks, the news,
and the culture at large. In their absence, stereotypes and misconceptions
persist. In philanthropy, Native organizations frequently find it necessary toprovide funders with a “Native 101,” a basic education about the historical andcultural context necessary to understand the current experiences of Native
American peoples and communities. Funders are not expected to be experts,
but a commitment to learning communicates value and respect and begins toshift some of the burden from Native peoples. Vance Blackfox (Cherokee) of
Native Americans in Philanthropy suggests that anyone can be an ally by first“combatting the erasure of Native peoples in your own life.”
Elyse Gordon of Philanthropy Northwest recommends starting by learning:“Who are the original inhabitants and continued stewards of the land where
you live/work/want to invest? What are their local histories?” It is importantto understand that each Native community is unique. Tribal groups may sharesimilar experiences and common challenges, but each has its own culture,
traditions, and history.

RESOURCES
Investing in Native Communities
Web portal to help philanthropy understand, connect with,and learn from Native communities
Context Is Everything
Seminal report to help philanthropy build stronger
partnerships with Native Americans
Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides
and Restore BalanceBook that describes the colonial dynamics at play inphilanthropy and finance and offers a way forward froman Indigenous perspective
IllumiNative
Initiative to increase the visibility of—and challenge thenegative narrative about—Native Nations and peoples in
American society
Reclaiming Native Truth Research Findings
Results from a research campaign to understand thedominant narrative about Native Americans
Tribal Nations and the United States: An Introduction
Overview of the history and underlying principles oftribal governance

The Blanket Exercise. Source: Native Americans in Philanthropy

36

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESCOMMIT TO BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
Building relationships takes time. “It takes place stitch by stitch,” describes
Gabrielle Strong of Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies. And it is fundamental tothis work. “When partnerships enable each person to show up fully as humanbeings, this goes a long way in deconstructing colonial systems, addressing
racialized outcomes, and addressing power dynamics within philanthropy,”says Vicky Stott of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Peer funders are a valuable resource. Martin Jennings of Northwest Area
Foundation encourages more mentorship within philanthropy: “Mentoring andsharing of knowledge have always been important practices for Indigenous
peoples. The most effective strategy to bring a new funder in is by a peer
funder. When an organization has a good relationship with Indian Country
and brings other funders on a learning tour and helps make those introductions,
new relationships can develop. I’ve seen this lead to strong allies for
Native organizations.”
Native-led intermediaries also play an important role in providing knowledge
and expertise and bridging philanthropy with grassroots Native organizations.
As relationships develop, it is important to be clear about your role. Strong asks,“Are you there to learn? To invest? To seed a strategic opportunity? To be a longterm supporter? It’s important to be very clear about your intent and your role.”RESOURCES
Native regranting organizations• American Indian College Fund
• Cherokee Preservation Foundation• Colorado Plateau Foundation• First Nations Development Institute• First Peoples Fund
• Hawai’i People’s Fund
• Indian Land Tenure Foundation• NDN Collective• Notah Begay III Foundation• Potlatch Fund
• Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples
These organizations may have broader missions, but grantmaking to
Native-led organizations is a component of their work.
Investing in Native Communities funding map
Identify partners (both funders and grantees) working inyour region or in your area of interest.
If you are a funder seeking a direct connection witha peer funder, we can help. Please reach out to us at
nativephilanthropy@candid.org.

COMMIT TO EVALUATING AND ADAPTING YOUR ORGANIZATION’S PRACTICES
Inequities exist, not only in funding patterns but also within organizations. In
U.S. philanthropy, American Indians and Alaska Natives represent only
0.5 percent of full-time staff in foundations, although they represent 2 percentof the U.S. population.35 Are you recruiting and hiring Native staff? Are you
harnessing the talent of Native employees? Do you have Native Americans inpositions of leadership? Are Native Americans serving on your board?
Internal processes and systems—including grantmaking structures, community
engagement, and data collection—can also perpetuate inequities. Are you
providing long-term operating support? Is it going to Native-led organizations?
Do you know the Native-led organizations in your service areas or those whoare addressing causes you care about? Are Native voices authentically informing
your work? Are Native populations reflected in your data?

RESOURCES
Native Americans in Philanthropyorganizational self-assessment
Tool to help foundations evaluate their practices as
they relate to Indigenous communities
Blanket exercise
Interactive experience that shares the history of Native
peoples to promote greater truth, understanding, and respect
Investing in Native Communities case studies
Stay tuned! We are beginning a series of case studies on how
funders are adapting their practices to be more inclusive of
Native communities
Share your data with CandidThis helps the whole field understand the landscape ofinvestments in Native communities

37

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESCOMMIT TO FUNDING
The funding relationship is a learning relationship. “Moving money into
communities is the best way to enter into a reciprocal learning partnership,”says Edgar Villanueva, Native Americans in Philanthropy board chair. “Therecan be a never-ending thirst to learn. Funders must understand that they will
never be experts on communities that they’re not from—and that’s okay. But,
temporary proximity and short-term relationships will not create expertise. The
best way to learn is to trust communities and actually start funding. There’s somuch to learn from building a funding relationship.”
It can begin with a modest grant to a funding collaborative or to a Nativeintermediary. “Take a chance,” says Sean Buffington of the Henry Luce
Foundation. “Even if it’s small. Even if it’s new for you and doesn’t look likeyour other partnerships. Learn, build trust, and gain experience. Because
there’s extraordinary work happening in Indian Country. With some financial
investment, Indigenous genius can drive Indigenous empowerment.”
The data also supports the necessity of funding. “Philanthropic support ofIndian Country is vital,” summarizes Gabrielle Strong of Margaret A. Cargill
Philanthropies. “We hope to see a real shift in the level of giving. And there aremany opportunities to address pervasive socio-economic and health disparities
while supporting Native community assets and resiliency.”

RESOURCES
Native-focused funds within philanthropic organizations• Common Counsel Foundation, in partnership withNative Americans in Philanthropy: Native Voices Rising
supports Native-led grassroots advocacy organizations• Cultural Conservancy: The Mino-Niibi Fund for
Indigenous Cultures provides small grants to
Indigenous-led organizations in the Americas
and the Pacific• Humboldt Area Community Foundation: The Native
Cultures Fund supports California Indian culture
bearers, artists, lifeways, and knowledge transmission• Minneapolis Foundation, in partnership with Native
Americans in Philanthropy: Generation Indigenous
supports Native youth leaders in advocacy efforts
See also the list of Native intermediaries on p. 37.
Funding Indigenous Peoples: Strategies for Support
Guide to collaborating with and bringing support toIndigenous communities around the world

CONNECT WITH US
Do you have experiences to share or lessons learned from your own practice?
Let us know. Contact nativephilanthropy@candid.org.

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESNative Americans in Philanthropy and Candid created this website to help philanthropy:• Expand its understanding of Indigenous peoples, their histories, and their resiliency• Visualize the landscape of philanthropic funding• Share knowledge and learn from Native communities and other organizations
Visit nativephilanthropy.candid.org.

38

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESENDNOTES
1. Foundation Center and Native Americans in Philanthropy. (2011). Foundation Funding for Native American Issues and Peoples: 9.
nativephilanthropy.candid.org/reports/foundation-funding-for-native-american-issues-and-peoples. Hereafter cited as FC and NAP, Foundation Funding.
2. Zinn, H. (1980). A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present: 6.
3. Ibid.
4. powwows.com/a-more-accurate-view-of-thanksgiving
5. Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8 (4), 387-409. doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240
6. Kent, D.H., and Stevens, S.K. (1941). Wilderness Chronicles of Northwestern Pennsylvania: 161.
7. Lomawaima K.T., & Ostler, J. (2018). Reconsidering Richard Henry Pratt: Cultural genocide and Native liberation in an era of racial oppression.
Journal of American Indian Education, 57 (1), 79-100.
8. Nies, J. (1996). Native American History: A Chronology of a Culture’s Vast Achievements and Their Links to World Events.
9. govtrack.us/congress/bills/101/hr5237/summary
10. ssir.org/articles/entry/equity_for_native_american_communities_using_mission_investments_alongside_grants
11. Candid’s database includes transactions other than grants, such as program-related investments and mission-related investments.
For this analysis, because data on other types of transactions was sparse, we limited the data set to grants.
12. FC and NAP, Foundation Funding.
13. Hicks, S., and Jorgensen, M. (2005). Large Foundations’ Grantmaking to Native America.
nativephilanthropy.candid.org/reports/large-foundations-grantmaking-to-native-america
14. FC and NAP, Foundation Funding.
15. First Nations Development Institute. (2018). Growing Inequity: Large Foundation Giving to Native American Organizations and Causes, 2006-2014.
Hereafter cited as FNDI, Growing Inequity.
16. Louis Delgado, in FC and NAP, Foundation Funding, references that William Brescia made this case in 1990.
17. U.S. Census. (2017). American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2017. census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/aian-month.html
18. U.S. Census. (2012). The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010. census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf
19. See chapter 2 in FC and NAP, Foundation Funding, and FNDI, Growing Inequity.
20. FNDI, Growing Inequity: 8.
21. Common Counsel Foundation and Native Americans in Philanthropy. (2013). Native Voices Rising: A Case for Funding Native-led Change.
nativevoicesrising.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Full-Report-NVR.pdf
22. FNDI, Growing Inequity: 8.
23. nwaf.org/native-led-organizations
24. nativevoicesrising.org/about
25. One Fire Development, Inc. (2011). Context Is Everything: Reflections on Strengthening Partnerships Between the Philanthropic Community and Native Americans: 25.
nativephilanthropy.candid.org/reports/context-is-everything-reflections-on-strengthening-partnerships-between-the-philanthropic-community-and-native-americans
26. First Nations Development Institute. (2018). We Need to Change How We Think: Perspectives on Philanthropy’s Underfunding of Native Communities and Causes: 8.
27. For more about tribal grantmaking, see First Nations Development Institute. (2015). Telling Our Giving Stories: Native Philanthropy and Community Development.
firstnations.org/publications/telling-our-giving-stories-native-philanthropy-and-community-development. Hereafter cited as FNDI, Telling Our Giving Stories.
28. thecirifoundation.org/about
29. issuu.com/shakopeedakota/docs/17-6045-smsc_2017_donation_report?e=16573251/62490935
30. Washington Indian Gaming Association. (2012). Washington Tribes: Contributing Now More Than Ever: Community Investment Report.
washingtonindiangaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FINAL-CIR-WEB-VERSION.pdf
31. FNDI, Telling Our Giving Stories.
32. schottfoundation.org/blog/2016/05/27/native-voices-rising-critical-leadership-institutional-philanthropy
33. nativecdfi.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2017-NCN-Policy-Brief.pdf
34. nwaf.org/portfolio/nativecdfi-2
35. Council on Foundations. (2018). 2017 Grantmaker and Salary Benefits Report.

39

INVESTING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES