Thank you so much for your interest in AFP-GPC’s new Blog! We’ll be adding content over the next few months and will share as posts are published. We hope our blog, which will feature articles and best practices from our members and sponsors, will serve as a resource for you as a fundraising professional. Check back soon!

AFP-GPC Survey Results: Part 3

By Marge King

This is the third and final in a series of posts about the recent AFP-GPC survey. This post will focus on the questions we asked about diversity, inclusion, and racism/inequity in the workplace.  To me, this post is the most interesting of the series. The first installment included information about COVID’s impact on compensation and employment as well as demographics. The second installment focused on the impact of COVID on nonprofit programmatic and fundraising activities.)

To understand how racism/inequities have impacted the respondents, we asked them to select all indicators that apply. Inequitable compensation (29.8%) and non-equitable assignment of responsibilities (18.2%) were the leading indications of racism/inequity.  Also high on the list were not being assigned the high-profile projects (12.4%), overlooked for a promotion (13.2%), and/or discriminatory language and/or derogatory comments (13.2%).

We also asked respondents whether their organization had diversity, inclusion, and/or equity policies. More than half (60.6%) reported that their organization have some form of a diversity, inclusion, and/or equity policy. What are the other 40% waiting for?  Do they need sample policies to get started? AFP Global has a section on Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access (IDEA) and its free to members. If you don’t have a policy in place, the Council of Nonprofits has a very good compilation of pointers, questions to consider, and resources about why IDEA matters.

As a final point on this topic, we asked respondents to reflect on what they know about their organization’s senior staff and board, in terms of diversity.  They could select any of the following:

- Age
- Cultural background
- Physical abilities and disabilities
- Language
- Race
- Gender
- Religion
- Sexual orientation

For senior staff, most respondents selected age (51.6%) and gender (57.9%) as diversity markers with race (28.6%), cultural background (26.2%), and sexual orientation (20.6%) lagging behind. But physical abilities and disabilities (5.6%), religion (15.1%), and language (8.7%) were left far behind the other markers. These results have me asking several questions.  Are we thinking about diversity in the broadest sense?  Is there an adequate pool of candidates that represent diverse backgrounds available for hire?  Are we advertising open positions where candidates with diverse backgrounds look for jobs? Are we developing talent adequately? I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I believe that raising them will help us think about and realize a fundraising world that is inherently diverse.

Perhaps we have been more intentional with recruiting board members because race (41.9%) and cultural background (39%) are significantly higher than with senior staff.  But, age (50.5%) and gender (61.9%) remain the top two diversity markers that were reported.  Many board governance committees or committees on directorship have the responsibility to make sure our boards are diverse and represent the people that our organizations serve.  Still, I think there is a lot of work to be done when we consider that sexual orientation (16.2%) and physical abilities and disabilities (5.7%) are the lowest of all diversity markers.

AFP-GPC continues to host our Coffee Conversations: What America is Not Hearing. Sign up for the next Coffee Conversations here. Continue the conversation; share your thoughts about IDEA in the comments.

About the author:

Marge King is a member of the AFP-GPC Board and is the Treasurer.  She also serves as the chair of AFP-GPC’s COVID Task Group which commissioned the survey.  She is the president and founder of InfoRich Group, Inc.

Return to list