Charity sector landscape and DEI culture
As we consider how to cultivate conditions for meaningful DEI culture, it is important to understand the existing terrain. For that reason, in this project we have engaged with both system-shapers, including funders and charity membership/infrastructure bodies, and senior charity senior leaders – 10 white and two BAME. As mentioned in the previous section, the views of the two BAME charity leaders have been used inform Section 2 on BAME experiences and perspectives rather than in this section. This is because these two individuals had rather different and richer insights compared with their white counterparts. Though we can’t read too much into this as it is only two people, it hints at the importance of BAME people in leadership positions in mainstream charities.
‘Getting’ the problem – up to a point
All of the white charity leaders interviewed for the project recognised that the charity sector is not reflective of its ‘user’ groups, those it represents or the wider population. They understood a lack of diversity to mean the relative absence of BAME people in charity spaces and accepted it as a self-evident problem.
In the words of one charity leader:
Racial diversity is visibly obviously very, very poor in the sector, particularly at senior levels. It is an overwhelmingly white sector, which is really wrong, given that … a large chunk of the sector is supposedly about working towards social justice and is often working with more marginalised communities.
Interview – white charity leader
And another leader spoke about the need to be more “reflective” of and open to broader society.
We have a responsibility to try and be at least broadly reflective of society and make sure that we’re not putting barriers in a way which excludes certain people within society.
Interview – white charity leader
There was some acknowledgement that the charity sector is not very inclusive or open, and that this is to the detriment of diversity.
I think we’re really quite good at moving around between us, but maybe not at bringing other people in.
Interview – white charity leader
Furthermore, there were a few examples of leaders who were clear about what inclusion looks like. For example, one leader stated about inclusion that:
It’s also something about creating an environment where people can be who they are so they don’t have to hide aspects of their identity.
Interview – white charity leader
And another white charity leader displayed an understanding of inclusion as being not only about making BAME people feel welcome but also about BAME people having access to power. They noted that an organisation could be diverse if it had “99 per cent non-white staff; but if the only person making the decisions is the white person that’s not really inclusive”.
However, these rather sophisticated understandings were not widespread in the interviews with white charity leaders. In particular, the interviewees found it difficult to articulate the distinction between diversity and inclusion. Yet this difference is important, because high numbers of BAME people present in the charity sector were clear that they did not feel welcome and accepted. For example, 246 people out of 490 online survey respondents felt that they needed to be on their ‘best behaviour’ in order to fit into the charity sector (see Section 2 for other examples).
When it came to the question of why there was a racial diversity problem in the charity sector, there was a general view that this deficit is connected to racism.
We live in a racist society, we have racists … institutions themselves can be institutionally racist … we all have our own biases, which are, you know, largely forged by that society.
Interview – white charity leader
This observation does, on the one hand, show some awareness of and insight into the problem. This interviewee, and most of the other leaders interviewed, acknowledged that racism exists in society and therefore in the charity sector as well. But even this way of thinking was somewhat limited and problematic.
In the quote above, and in other interviews with leaders who are white, racism is named almost as if it exists as an abstract force – one that lives somewhere out in the world rather than being internalised and owned. This can reveal and entrench the idea that racism is inevitable and will always exist: the opposite of what we want in order to energise meaningful action.
This kind of generalised talk about racism, including phrases such as “we all have our own biases”, can also be a way of putting distance between the speaker and racism. In keeping with this, there is not a sense from our interviews with white charity leaders that they are intimately engaged with racism or in self-reflection about it.
Neither did participating white charity leaders appear to have a detailed understanding or analysis of factors underlying racism. For example, there was little engagement with how charity paternalism or aspects of colonialism can help to generate or perpetuate the problem. And there was little discussion of the different – sometimes subtle – ways in which racism manifests institutionally, or how this might specifically reveal itself in charities. By way of contrast, it is fair to say that BAME participants in the project have had little choice but to become overly familiar with ‘race’ and racism – indeed to become ‘experts’ in it – because it shapes their experiences in the sector so profoundly.
Blockages and resistance to DEI
There was general agreement among the leaders about the DEI problems and deficits in the sector. Leaders also expressed interest in solving the problem, in part because they believed that greater racial and other diversity strengthens the work of the charity sector and its absence undermines that work.
For example, one white charity leader said:
You may be missing out within the organisation on some extraordinarily brilliant people that could improve
Interview – white charity leader
your work and development.
But when it came to discussions of practical change towards being ‘more reflective’ of the communities that they serve, the leaders as a whole were uncertain about what to do and were also somewhat resistant to action.
There was, for example, talk about wanting to “connect naturally” with “these [BAME] groups” and not be “threatened” into it by external pressure:
I think what’s counterproductive is some of the really loud outrage that goes on. And I also get where that comes from.
Interview – white charity leader
The quote above shows some sympathy with, but also resistance to, what the interviewee deems to be “loud” external voices demanding change. The statement reveals some concerning but familiar stereotyping – for example associating BAME people with ‘rage’ and being ‘shouty’, and classifying some BAME people as being threatening or potentially dangerous to white people.
This line of thinking is problematic not only because of its racialised undertones, but also because it reveals a desire of people in relative positions of power and privilege to prescribe how marginalised groups should ask for change. This ties in with the earlier discussion (see Section 2) and concerns expressed by some racial justice advocates that inclusion is in the ‘gift’ of powerful actors – a gift only given on the terms decided by charity sector leaders.
Another blockage on DEI was mentioned by a few of the white charity leaders who felt that DEI and issues of ‘race’ were difficult and risky territory. There were some concerns that they might get the issue ‘wrong’ and trigger negative reactions.
I mean, there’s something particularly difficult about racial equality. It’s such a sensitive issue. Look, people find it difficult to even sort of say the word ‘race’ or they’re really nervous about the language … And I think there’s a fear, there’s a lot of fear about the subject.
Interview – white charity leader
Another interviewee suggested that these difficulties meant that DEI issues as they relate to ‘race’ would end up in the “too-difficult pile”.
We take these concerns seriously. This is hard work, and in wider society we do struggle with issues/discussions of ‘race’ and racism. However, such anxieties somewhat assume that these white-majority institutions need to find the answers or do the work on their own. The reality is that there is scope to co-design such efforts, including with BAME race equity and DEI specialists as well as with BAME staff, trustees and other stakeholders engaged with charitable organisations.
