The Global Mapping Survey Full Data Release
2nd Edition
November 2021
©The Racial Equity Index
A project of Moore Impact
The Global Mapping Survey Full Data Release
2nd Edition
Please note that in this 2nd edition, all updated and newly added slides are differentiated via the golden band on the right-hand side.
Table of Contents
4
BIPOC - Black, Indigenous, People of Colour.
REIndex - the Racial Equity Index.
U.S. or U.S.A. - United States of America
NGO - A Non-Governmental Organisation
HR - Human Resources
iNGO - International Non-Governmental Organisation
U.N. - the United Nations
U.N. Agencies - Autonomous international organisations that work with the U.N.
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
Abbreviations
5
Dear Readers,
We are excited to present to you our full and final data report from our Global Mapping Survey. Our first data report (released June 2021) which focused on the demographic and quantitative data was a starting point for us, as a collective, in understanding the state of racism in the global development sector.
As a volunteer, BIPOC-led collective the data analysis of the Global Mapping Survey was done deliberately to ensure that we asked all relevant questions of ourselves and of the data that was presented. The data you see before you, along with our analysis, has been peer-reviewed at every stage both internally by our working group members but also by our independent peer-review group.
An important note we want to make: The results of the Global Mapping Survey serve as a summary of both the quantitative and qualitative data collected. This edition of the Global Mapping Survey report contains additional analysis of the qualitative data that is meant to complement the existing quantitative analysis. The Racial Equity Index requests that individuals, groups, and organisations reviewing this data do not isolate or pull out specific data points without connecting them to the larger context of the work the Racial Equity Index is doing.
Please refer to our methodology page to understand how we constructed the survey and why we chose to embark on this journey towards building an index for racial equity for the global development sector.
The data we are presenting here is currently in English, but we hope to translate the full analysis into additional languages in the future. If you use Google Chrome then you can translate the website text into the languages available by using the extension here.
Our next step is to use the data analysed to inform the next phase in the build of our index - focus groups (see our timeline here). We will be releasing information on our focus groups in the coming months. In the meantime, we hope you find this data report as enlightening as we did. We welcome your comments, reflections, concerns, or questions - at TheRacialEquityIndex@gmail.com.
The Racial Equity Index Working Group
Letter from the Racial Equity Index Working Group
KEY FINDINGS
Three Key Findings
7
ABOUT THE RACIAL EQUITY INDEX
The murder of George Floyd shook the whole world in 2020 and ignited a firestorm in the international development community on the deep and systemic racism within global development.
In the months that followed the international development community started to face a reckoning - one that hasn’t been seen in this intensity before.
The Racial Equity Index was born in July 2020 in response to the need for an accounting of the immense lack of racial equity in the development space.
9
The global development sector has a very poor track record as it relates to engaging with issues of racial equity and racial justice in a meaningful manner. This is particularly stark when we acknowledge the colonial roots of modern global development practice.
10
The Racial Equity Index is a BIPOC led volunteer collective, based around the world, with a combined total of 50+ years of direct experience of racial inequity and injustice within global development.
11
We are building a racial equity index to hold the global development sector accountable in dismantling
all forms of systemic racism.
12
The work of the Racial Equity Index is intentional, authentic, intersectional, and informed and led by the lived experience of the peoples who have been impacted most directly by harmful practices and beliefs in global development.
13
Our Values
14
We are anti-racist
We practice radical empathy
Our work is transparent
We centre accountability and humility
We create a welcoming space
We are intentional
We are purpose driven,
volunteer-led, and bold.
Our Structure
15
Working
Group
Scoping
Group
Survey Group
Partnerships
Communications Group
Core Group - comprised of 1 person from each workstream group + facilitator.
Peer Review Group
WHY THE GLOBAL MAPPING SURVEY?
17
Review of Purpose - Global Mapping Survey
Established in June 2020, The Racial Equity Index (REIndex) is an international collective of BIPOC people who currently work in or have spent part of their career working in global development.
As a first step towards creating a Racial Equity Index to hold the global development sector to account, the REIndex Working Group decided to reach out to organisations and individuals working in the global development sector to identify key indicators that should be included in the Racial Equity Index.
Our methodology describes the process that went into the development of the global mapping survey, dissemination of the survey, and anticipated next steps.
Global Mapping Survey Partnerships
18
We formed over 30 partnerships with orgs and collectives to promote the global mapping survey
Once the Global Mapping Survey was finalized in November 2020, the Racial Equity Index reached out to our networks to solicit support from volunteers to translate the survey into as many languages as possible to ensure the survey’s accessibility.
Through the support of our networks and availability of translators to do pro-bono work, we were able to make the survey available in 10 languages:
19
Survey Translations
20
Methodology
With transparency and collaboration as core values for the Racial Equity Index, the Working Group began developing a global mapping survey to crowdsource key indicators to measure racial equity within global development organisations and institutions. The survey also asked respondents if they had themselves experienced and/or witnessed racism in the global development sector along with several key demographic questions to get a sense of the survey respondents’ background including, self-identified racial identity, gender identity, age group, current country of residence, capacity in which they are working and/or participating in the global development sector, and tenure in the sector.
The Racial Equity Index Working Group drew from our own experiences to identify 11 key indicators within an organisation’s structure, policies, and processes that can affect racial equity internally and through its external programs and practices. With the support from six peer reviewers, the overall survey and each of the 11 indicators and their respective definitions went through several iterations to ensure clarity, comprehensiveness, and neutrality.
The Racial Equity Index working group analysed the survey data in two stages. First, the responses to all questions except the free response questions on experiencing and racism were, analysed to provide descriptives on our survey respondents (ie: what identities they hold, where they come from, etc.) and aggregate frequency counts for our 11 indicators. During the second phase of analysis, we dug into the qualitative data.
21
Methodology
For the short answer responses shared by survey respondents, the Racial Equity Index working group performed an initial read to identify key themes. The group then drafted a codebook based on these themes. We found that many of the themes fell into the 11 indicators we had already identified. Thus, under each indicator, the working group identified 2-5 sub-themes, or sub-codes, outlining how racial inequity plays out under each larger indicator.
After we created the codebook, each member of the survey group read and sub-coded a section of the short answer responses. We then re-assigned sections so another member of the team was able to re-read and validate the sub-codes for a different set of short answer responses.
Upon completion of the coding process, the Racial Equity Index working group came together to discuss the sub-codes and additional themes and observations that they saw throughout the responses. The group identified an additional five (5) themes from the qualitative data that further add to our analysis.
The report outlines the quantitative and qualitative analyses, weaving together a complex story of racism and racial inequity within the global development sector and its impacts on the people who work within it.
How to Reflect on the Data Shared
The results of the Global Mapping Survey serve as a summary of both the quantitative and qualitative data collected. This edition of the Global Mapping Survey report contains additional analysis of the qualitative data that is meant to complement the existing quantitative analysis.
The Racial Equity Index requests that individuals, groups, and organisations reviewing this data do not isolate or pull out specific data points without connecting them to the larger context of the work the Racial Equity Index is doing.
22
GENERAL OVERVIEW AND DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
24
General Respondent Overview
791 Total Responses
In 10 languages
83 countries
Summary: The survey received the highest response rate from the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Germany, and South Africa.
25
General Respondent Details
The Global Mapping Survey was answered by almost 800 respondents, all of whom are part of the global development sector, from 83 countries in a total of 9 languages.
The map on the previous page highlights the different countries where we received responses, with the countries in darker blue representing the areas where we got the most respondents.
More than half of the respondents (57%) are based in the USA, Great Britain, and Canada, with the rest coming from a few countries in Southern Asia, Africa, and Latin America and although the global mapping survey was offered in 10 languages, 86.9% of respondents completed the survey in English.
The Working Group also analysed the self-reported racial identities of respondents in each country, finding that of the 453 respondents based in the USA, Great Britain, and Canada, 29% identified as white, 11% identified as Black, 4% identified as South Asian, 2% identified as Latinx, and another 2% who identified as Biracial/mixed.
The Global Mapping Survey gave respondents the opportunity to self-identify their gender with multiple options to choose from. The results showed that 76% of survey respondents self-identified as female, 20% self-identified as male, 1% self-identified as queer, and the rest chose a mixture of multiple gender identities to best describe themselves.
26
Intersection between racial self-identity and gender
Summary: This graph shows most commonly selected racial identities of survey respondents: 32% white females, 17% Black females, 7% South Asian females, 6% Black males, and 6% white males.
27
Intersection between racial self-identity and gender
Breaking down the data to understand the relationship between the racial self-identity and gender self-identity of our respondents, the previous page shows us who answered our survey.
Along the bottom row (or the x-axis) you will see gender identities of the people who answered the survey. Along the left side (or the y-axis) you will see the racial identities. The dark blue square shows which gender and racial identity combination was the most common. The lighter the blue, the lower the numbers of that particular gender and racial identity answered.
From the data shared above, most of the survey respondents self-identify as white women (32%), which correlates with general global development sector data, where white women currently represent the largest population working in the global development sector. The next most common respondents were Black women (17%), South Asian women (7%), and then Black and white men (both at 6%).
The Racial Equity Index working group was surprised to get so few responses from white men, since this group still represents a large population of the sectors; however, we were thrilled to see such a high response rate from Black women, who are rarely highlighted in the sector, except for a select few.
28
Q. How long have you been working/participating in the social justice and global development space (as a volunteer, part-time or full-time employee, consultant, board member, philanthropist, etc.)?
Summary: In order of relevance, the top responses from survey respondents are 5-10 years, 11-15 years, 20+ years, 1-4 years, 16-20 years, and less than one year.
29
Q. How long have you been working/participating in the social justice and global development space (as a volunteer, part-time or full-time employee, consultant, board member, philanthropist, etc.)?
We further analysed the data based on the length of time survey respondents have been part of the global development sector. The chart on the previous page exhibits respondents self-reported time spent either working or participating in the global development or social justice space.
Approximately 50% of survey respondents reported that they’ve worked or participated in the global development space for between 5-15 years, either as a volunteer, employee, consultant, board member, philanthropist, etc.
Approximately 17% of respondents replied that they’ve been in the sector for 20+ year and a similar percent of respondents have been in the sector between 1-4 years. This analysis demonstrates the range of experience respondents have in this sector.
30
Q. In what capacity do you currently work and participate in the social justice and global development space (choose all that apply)
Summary: In order or relevance, the top responses include, employee of NGO, consultant, volunteer, other, participant at meetings, employee.
31
Q. In what capacity do you currently work and participate in the social justice and global development space (choose all that apply)
The chart on the previous page details the capacity or participation area for respondents within the global development sector at large.
The areas of work include (from highest to lowest ranking): Employee of iNGO (409 responses), Consultants, Volunteer, Other (where people could clarify if they so choose), Participant at meetings, Employee in the private sector, Employee of aid/UN agencies, Employee of multilateral organisations, Contractors, Individual Funders, Interns and Retired.
Over half of the respondents shared that they are employees at international NGOs. Additionally, 40% of respondents shared that they are consultants or volunteers within the social justice and global development sector, demonstrating the diversity in positionality within the overall sector.
INDICATOR ANALYSIS
33
The Global Mapping Survey Indicators
For the purposes of the Global Mapping Survey, the Racial Equity Index Working Group identified a selection of indicators (and accompanying definitions) which are related to how organisations in the global development sector operate internally and externally, and where the lack of racial equity has a significant impact.
Survey respondents were asked to rank the following indicators that resonate/matter most to them when they think about racial equity in organisations in the global development sector.
34
The Global Mapping Survey Indicators
35
Q. Which of these indicators resonate/matter most to you when you think about racial equity from an organisational perspective (specifically for the global development space)? Please select your top 5 choices.
In our analysis of these indicators, the Racial Equity Index looked at how these indicators resonate/matter to respondents based on their different and multiple identities, experiences, positionalities, and geographies. In the graphic above, respondents who self-identified as BIPOC ranked the indicators with programming, workplace culture, leadership, fund allocations & grantmaking principles, and mission as their top five indicators that resonate/matter most when thinking about racial equity from an organisational perspective in the global development sector.
For white respondents, the top five indicators were: workplace culture, leadership, programming, fund allocations & grantmaking principles, and external partnerships/relationships.
36
Indicators by Global North and Global South
37
Indicators by Global North and Global South
When reflecting on how the ranking of these indicators differ between respondents located in the Global South, which includes countries in Africa, Southern and often Eastern Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, versus the Global North, such as the U.S.A, European countries, and Canada, respondents agreed top 5 indicators were mostly similar, though ranked at different levels.
Respondents from the Global South prioritised programming, fund allocations & grantmaking principles, organisational mission, workplace culture, and Leadership as their top 5 indicators, while respondents from the Global North highlighted workplace culture, leadership, programming, funding allocations & grantmaking principles, and external partnerships/relationships as their top 5 indicators for racial equity for organisations in the global development sector.
Although sources of funding was not ranked in the top 5 indicators for respondents in the Global South or the Global North, it was 7th for the respondents in the Global South and the least important for those in the Global North. This may relate to the relationship of the sources of funding within the countries in the Global South or the parameters and expectations of funders in terms of organisations and organisational offices in the Global South.
38
Indicators by Time in the Development Sector
39
Indicators by Time in the Development Sector
In terms of the number of years in which respondents are part of the global development sector, respondents working in the sector between 1 and 15 years highlighted workplace cultures are the number 1 indicator when they think of racial equity for organisations in the global development sector.
Programming seems to become more important to respondents with over 16 years of experience, while workplace culture becomes a bit less important for respondents with 20+ years in the sector.
The mission of an organisation is the indicator, in terms of racial equity in global development organisations, that matters most for respondents within their first year of working in the sector and human resource management is the 2nd, both of which may relate to how people get drawn to working with specific global development organisations. Compensation only came up within the top 5 indicators that matter when reflecting on racial equity for respondents with less than 1 year in the global development sector, which also aligns with some of the key things people think about when starting a new job or career.
The mission of an organisation varies in terms of its ranking with respondents with 1-20+ years within the sector; however leadership and fund allocations & grantmaking principles stay relatively consistent between respondents with 1-20+ years in the global development sector.
40
Indicators by Intersection of Race and Gender
Indicator rankings shifted more significantly depending on the intersection of self-reported racial and gender identities.* For white, Black, Asian, South Asian, and Biracial/mixed race women and white men, Workplace culture and leadership were ranked as the top 2 important indicators that matter most when thinking about racial equity from an organisational perspective in the global development sector.
41
Indicators by Intersection of Race and Gender
Black, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Biracial/mixed race men ranked programming as the number 1 indicator when thinking about racial equity in the global development sector - although programming was ranked within the top 5 indicators for everyone other than Southeast Asian women, it often came up as the 4th or 5th indicator for other groups.
42
Indicators by Intersection of Race and Gender
For Southeast Asian women, Lantix women, South Asian Men, and Biracial/mixed men the mission of an organisation was one of the top 2 indicators when thinking about racial equity within organisations in the global development sector, the 3rd most important indicator for Black women and men, and within the top 5 for Southeast Asian men. However, for white and South Asian women mission was not considered as important as funding allocation & grantmaking principles or external partnerships/relationships. For white men and women from various other racial identities that were not specified, the mission of an organisation was not listed even in their top 10 indicators to consider when reflecting on racial equity in global development.
In addition, the Racial Equity Index working group was surprised that human resource management varied significantly in terms of its importance in relation to racial equity in global development between different gender and racial groups across survey respondents and that salary was only prioritised in the top 10 indicators for six groups often in the 9th or 10th position.
*Please note that the graphic above exhibits the self-reported racial and gender identities with enough respondents (over 20 respondents) to demonstrate trends in the data. The data from racial or gender identities with very few respondents was not generalizable enough to share an analysis.
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
44
Qualitative Data Analysis Section Contents
In this section you’ll find analysis on the short answer responses from the global mapping survey.
Sections include:
45
Short Answer Responses
For the purposes of the qualitative data analysis, the Racial Equity Index working group maintained the 11 indicators related to how organisations in the global development sector operate internally and externally outlined in the quantitative data as part of our qualitative data analysis.
Survey respondents were asked two short answer questions near the end of the Global Mapping Survey:
A total of 137 respondents (17.1%) shared stories of experiencing racism while 164 respondents (20.7%) shared accounts of witnessing racism.
*Please note that for the safety and wellbeing of our survey respondents we will not be sharing direct quotes, but instead will summarize their responses where useful.
46
Types of global development organisations where respondents experience/witness racism
Summary: The top four types of organisations noted where survey respondents noted experiencing and witnessing racism are in order: iNGO (270 respondents), Private sector organisation (140 respondents), Funder organisation (127 respondents), and Aid/UN Agencies (123 respondents).
Please note: 35% of total survey respondents come from the iNGO space.
47
Most coded indicators for respondent short answers
Summary:
The graph shows the indicator breakdown amongst respondents who provided legitimate (non-blank, non-yes/no) accounts of experiencing & witnessing racism. The top four most coded indicators in both the experiencing and witnessing racism questions are: Workplace Culture (74% experiencing racism, 64% witnessing racism), Human Resource Management (46% experiencing racism, 44% witnessing racism), Salary (21% for both experiencing and witnessing racism), Communications (10% experiencing racism, 16% witnessing racism), and Programming (8% experiencing racism, 14% witnessing racism).
48
Workplace Culture - Sub Codes
This indicator refers to:
The enabling environment that fosters inclusive and equitable spaces or catalyzes harm. *
The sub-codes that emerged from the qualitative data gathered include:
*This indicator also refers to the extent to which the organisational structure has been designed to incorporate values and commitments to equity from a development perspective. This aspect is something that will be explored later in the research process.
49
Workplace Culture - Results
and Analysis
There were 269 appearances of this indicator in our qualitative responses to the survey. 135 appearances were of experiencing racism, and 134 appearances were of witnessing racism.
Racial abuse was the top sub-code within this indicator. From the coding of data, there is an overwhelming number of BIPOC respondents who indicated experiencing various forms of racial abuse in the workplace, including interpersonal and institutional forms of racism. The instances of racism shared include experiences of toxic workplaces with silencing, harassment, bullying, racialized microaggressions, misogynoir, and allegations of sexual abuse.
Prioritizing white voices was another sub-code with high frequency under this indicator. In some cases, this referred to the favoring and privileging the input of white colleagues in the workplace, which also diminishes and silences the knowledge and input of BIPOC colleagues. This indicator was also coded with another subcode, gaslighting, to reference collective white solidarity to dismiss and belittle concerns of BIPOC individuals.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Racial Abuse | 75 | 75 |
Gaslighting | 12 | 7 |
Tokenism | 8 | 10 |
Exclusion from decision-making | 3 | 7 |
Prioritizing white voices | 26 | 31 |
Risk of reprisal | 11 | 4 |
50
Gaslighting (including examples of defensiveness, and dismissal of experiences of racism) and tokenism (including roles that have limited decision-making power, but are included in order to represent a ‘diverse perspective’) followed as the codes that appeared most frequently in the qualitative analysis.
Some of the outlined experiences include fear or risk of reprisal and exclusion from decision-making upon confronting racism in the workplace and sharing experiences with human resources or workplace leadership.
Notably, there were several instances under this indicator, where some respondents noted that there were too many experiences of racism to share in this short survey.
Through the process of completing this survey, some respondents shared remembering experiences that were blocked out, which may be a coping mechanism or survival tactic to function in the workplace. This is also an indication that this is a snapshot of the experiences of racism in the workplace, and that the true extent of racism that BIPOC individuals are faced with may exceed what is captured here.
Workplace Culture - Results
and Analysis
51
HR Management - Sub Codes
This indicator refers to:
Whether the organisation has systems and processes that are focused on equitable hiring practices, strategies and measurable goals for strengthening diversity and inclusion in the workplace, and procedures in place to protect employees from workplace retaliation (i.e. safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures).
The sub-codes that emerged from the qualitative data gathered include:
*Limitations in Salary Negotiations refers to the discriminatory practice in which BIPOC and local hires are limited in what they are able to negotiate in their salary whereas White people and Western Expats particularly have a higher salary range in which they can negotiate.
52
HR Management - Results and Analysis
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Discrimination in hiring practices | 29 | 21 |
Inequitable treatment of locals vs international staff | 21 | 31 |
Limited opportunities for advancement | 28 | 23 |
No HR protection | 7 | 7 |
The data in this indicator shows a total of 167 respondents which consist of 85 respondents who experienced racism and 82 respondents who witnessed racism in HR management in the global development sector. The highest sub-code for experienced racism in HR management is “discrimination in hiring practices” with the sub-code “limited opportunities for advancement” coming closely at second place. The highest sub-code for witnessed racism in HR management is inequitable treatment of locals vs international staff.
53
HR Management - Results and Analysis
The responses that were sub-coded as inequitable treatment of locals vs international staff often came from a third party perspective, whereas responses that were sub-coded as discrimination in hiring practices and/or limited opportunities for advancement were more likely to be reported by those directly affected. This may be the case because inequitable treatment of locals vs international staff is more visible and can be witnessed by other parties, while discrimination in hiring practices and/or limited opportunities for advancement are often experienced between a few people (the applicant/employee, HR management and leadership) and may not be visible to the larger organisation.
Respondents of colour spoke about how it is harder for them to get a job compared to their white colleagues and found themselves getting passed over for advancement opportunities, or had to be overqualified to be considered for a role as a BIPOC. Furthermore, some respondents reported no transparency on compensation*, which makes it easier for organisations to treat local and international staff inequitably. A few respondents also mentioned how complaints to HR management about discrimination and racism were often disregarded.
*Please note that more analysis on salary can be found on page 56.
54
Leadership - Sub Codes
This indicator refers to:
The makeup of an organisation’s leadership team - whether or not leadership at all levels (from management to senior leadership to the executive board) is representative and inclusive of the groups and communities that the organisation works with.
The sub-codes that emerged from the qualitative data gathered include:
*White-presenting is when society perceives a BIPOC person (Black, Indigenous, and People of colour) as a white person, for whatever reason. Because of how they present, white presenting individuals have greater access to the benefits of White Privilege than other individuals in their community. White Presenting is different from White Passing, which refers to a specific decision made by a white presenting individual to assimilate fully into the White dominant society.
55
Leadership - Results and Analysis
The Leadership indicator appeared 123 times in the written responses: 42 instances of experiencing racism, 81 instances of witnessing racism. The sub-codes Power imbalance and neo-colonialist structures appeared most frequently in both cases of experiencing and witnessing racism and is presented by white leadership assuming employees of colour and employees from the Global South are less intelligent and less competent than their white or Western counterparts. Many respondents detail individuals in leadership positions using their power to appoint unqualified people from the Global North to positions over qualified local staff. A number of responses from both the experiencing and witnessing racism groups also were sub-coded as lack of accountability and described many separate instances where leadership was not held to account for racist behaviours and speech.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Power Imbalance | 13 | 25 |
Lack of Accountability | 8 | 17 |
Neo-Colonialist Structures | 17 | 37 |
Board Compliance/Accountability | 4 | 2 |
56
Salary - Sub Codes
This indicator refers to:
A transparent system of payments and processes for employee advancement from organisations to employees, both in country and in head office, in exchange for their work, which includes an acknowledgement of the pay gap across gender, race, nationality, geography, etc and the willingness to work towards a more equitable salary structure.’
The sub-codes that emerged from the qualitative data gathered include:
57
Salary - Results and Analysis
This indicator appeared a total of 63 times in the qualitative analysis. For respondents that had experienced racism, it was seen a total of 29 times. For respondents that had witnessed racism, it was seen 34 times. The Salary Administration Fee sub-code was not seen among the entries of the respondents. Below is a table that summarises the frequencies of the sub-codes.
Sub-codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Salary Discrepancies | 19 | 16 |
Pay Inequities | 8 | 16 |
Salary Administration Fee | 0 | 0 |
Multiple* | 2 | 2 |
*Some entries had more than one code. For both columns two respondents had a combination of Salary discrepancies and Pay inequities as sub-codes.
58
Salary - Results and Analysis
Situations that described Salary Discrepancies were the most common for both experiencing and witnessing racism. Salary Discrepancies were seen as differences in national vs international staff pay or BIPOC staff being paid less in the same role as their white counterparts. In these scenarios, The BIPOC staff receive “less pay for much more work and qualifications.” Some responses that stated or hinted at any form of salary discrepancy also mentioned being undermined in other situations. This was noted as one of the many examples of racism in their working environment. When the salary indicator was the focal point of respondents’ responses, it would be accompanied by a reference to having more experience or a larger workload than their white counterparts. Additionally, some responses indicate that BIPOC staff have fewer professional development opportunities. Some respondents stated how the discrepancies in pay would be justified to be different or be reprimanded if they challenged the salary discrepancy.
59
Communications - Sub Codes
This indicator refers to:
The equitable process by which information is exchanged; especially between the organisations and the communities they work with, and how narratives and images are being developed, created, and presented. The codes for this indicator are:
The sub-codes that emerged from the qualitative data gathered include:
60
Communications - Results and Analysis
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Instrumentalizing BIPOC trauma (experiences) | 4 | 7 |
Coded language | 10 | 20 |
White Saviourism | 3 | 4 |
This indicator appears 48 times in the qualitative responses to the survey. 17 instances were cases of people experiencing racism while the remaining 31 were cases of people witnessing racism occur. Coded language appeared as the most frequent sub-code for this indicator with a total of 30 cases across responses to both witnessing and experiencing racism. Accounts that fell into this sub-code ranged from racist language used against BIPOC staff within organisations to derogatory comments to describe communities from the Global South. Many cases indicate language being used to infantilize and invalidate the intelligence of national staff. A number of responses from individuals based in the United States also noted examples of coded language being used against Black women that implied a lack of professionalism due to physical appearance, aggressive personality types, and assumptions that individuals were junior staff members.
61
Communications - Results and Analysis
The sub-codes - instrumentalizing BIPOC trauma and white saviourism, appeared to go hand-in-hand with each other. Almost all responses within these sub-codes referenced the exploitation of BIPOC trauma and the portrayal of these communities as desperate through photos and narratives for fundraising purposes (“poverty porn”).
While Communications is often thought about in terms of external/public messaging that organisations do to promote their work, the responses for this indicator reference the need for organisations and individuals to use a holistic, inclusive lens on their messaging. Internal communications and interpersonal communications matter as much as external communications. The instances of racism we analysed that reference both internal and external communications, however, clearly convey the belief that BIPOC communities are less than, regardless of nationality.
62
Qualitative Analysis - Low Frequency Indicators
Mission: This indicator refers to how an organisation prioritizes racial equity within its mission and values.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
White saviourism | 6 | 3 |
Misalignment with mission | 1 | 1 |
The remaining indicators appeared with the least frequency in our qualitative data: Mission, Fund Allocation & Grantmaking Principles, Programming, Sources of Funding, Compensation, and External Partnerships.
For each of these indicators, we have provided the indicators, sub-codes, and frequencies that each sub-code appeared in the qualitative responses.
63
Fund Allocation & Grantmaking Principles: This indicator refers to how organisations - specifically funders (foundations, philanthropists, individual donors) determine how to allocate funding and if their funding criteria centres principles of racial equity from a grantmaking perspective.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Reckless aid | 1 | 8 |
Western superiority | 6 | 10 |
White exceptionalism | 0 | 6 |
Qualitative Analysis - Low Frequency Indicators
64
Programming: This indicator refers to how an organisation engages impacted populations in programming from strategy and design to implementation through monitoring and evaluation.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
White saviourism | 8 | 20 |
Funder-led | 3 | 3 |
Qualitative Analysis - Low Frequency Indicators
65
Sources of Funding: This applies to organisations receiving funding. Key ethical and equitable principles, criteria and mechanisms governing resource mobilisation are in place and enforced that respect transparency, doing no harm, confidentiality, being fair and socially responsible.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Compromised integrity | 1 | 1 |
Funding decisions and priorities | 6 | 5 |
Qualitative Analysis - Low Frequency Indicators
66
Compensation: This indicator refers to an organisation’s transparency and equity within it’s compensation structure and processes for consultants and contractors that prioritizes experience and expertise and takes into account the costs of basic benefits (such as healthcare - which the consultant or contractor will have to pay for through the compensation offered) and the type of contracts needed for the specific project or work being requested.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
Pay inequity/Benefit inequity | 7 | 10 |
Local versus Western Disparitiies | 4 | 11 |
Compensation versus payroll | 0 | 1 |
Qualitative Analysis - Low Frequency Indicators
67
External Partnerships: An indicator to reflect on how organisations formulate partnerships and the criteria for choosing partnerships, whether or not the partners align with values of equity while also taking into account building relationships between partners that recognises the different power dynamics between geographies and size of organisations.
Sub-Codes | Experienced Racism | Witnessed Racism |
External expertise | 1 | 1 |
Inequitable partnership | 1 | 4 |
Racial abuse | 4 | 6 |
Qualitative Analysis - Low Frequency Indicators
NEXT STEPS IN BUILDING THE RACIAL EQUITY INDEX
Building the Racial Equity Index
69
Building the Racial Equity Index
70
Global Mapping Survey
The Global Mapping Survey will ask one main question on what are the top 5 issues/areas that people think about when focused on Racial Equity from an org. Perspective in the Int. Dev sector
Data Mining
Data will be collected and processed from the Global Mapping Survey. The top 5 - 7 issues/areas that are noted will be transformed into focus groups.
Focus Groups
Focus groups will further explore the details of the indicators, more deeply explore our survey data, and help build the foundation of the REIndex tool..
Detailed Survey
Based on the work of the focus groups, a detailed survey will be sent out to confirm the findings for the indicators and sub-codes for the index
Scoring and Test Group
Scoring systems will be developed by the focus group and once the index has been developed a test group of organisations will be rated before the release of the full index.
Building the index
Plan for implementation and the structure of the index to be determined, and identification of who will be involved in these steps and groups capacity to be determined.
We are here!
THANK YOU!
October 2021
©The Racial Equity Index
A project of Moore Impact