As a worldwide funder, we regularly hear from, and share with, our friends the challenges of accumulating grantee demographic knowledge internationally. This contains questions of tips on how to navigate totally different authorized landscapes by way of what knowledge we’re allowed to gather; tips on how to strategy delicate knowledge; and what’s even significant to gather given the significance of cultural context.
Necessities round compliance, privateness, and safety of knowledge varies from place to position. And, identification with sure demographic classes (e.g. LGBTQ+) may very well place respondents in danger in some locations. All of this makes accumulating demographic knowledge internationally extra difficult. So whereas we have now seen some important progress in demographic knowledge assortment amongst these funding in america in the previous couple of years, there was much less motion for these funding exterior of the U.S. to determine helpful methods to seize variety knowledge.
In 2023, the Ford Basis made the choice to start accumulating extra demographic knowledge for organizations primarily based within the ten areas exterior of the US during which we fund. 5 actions got here of those efforts:
- We proceed to gather knowledge on gender as we have now been.
- We started accumulating knowledge on incapacity.
- For a number of the areas the place we fund, we started accumulating knowledge on race/ethnicity in a manner that might be significant domestically.
- For these areas the place race and ethnicity knowledge was much less significant, we started accumulating knowledge on extra domestically related classes of id.
- Making an allowance for native privateness safety legal guidelines, we determined to restrict worldwide knowledge assortment to board and government staff, avoiding knowledge assortment of any particular, identifiable particular person.
On this piece, we share just a little bit about our course of, classes discovered, and selections round which knowledge to gather.
The place We Have been: The Problem of Accumulating Demographic Knowledge Overseas
In 2018, the Ford Basis revised its strategy to DEI knowledge assortment for grantees with the purpose of focusing much less on counting individuals and extra on embedding fairness and belonging into organizations. And but, we additionally acknowledged that some quantity of knowledge assortment was necessary, and a part of pursuing that purpose of fairness. Within the U.S., monitoring race and ethnicity was notably salient and we relied on the next classes:
- Multiracial or Multiethnic
- Arab or Arab American
- Asian or Asian American
- Black or African American
- Hispanic or Latino/a/x
- Native American, American Indian, or Alaska Native
- Native Hawaiian or Different Pacific Islander
- White
- Different
- Unknown or decline to state
In comparison with gender and incapacity, race/ethnicity is extra difficult because it’s not a common lens via which oppression can occur. For instance, it will not be significant to trace BIPOC-led organizations in nations/areas the place there are not any BIPOC communities as we perceive it right here within the U.S. And that is the case for the opposite areas during which we work: Mexico/Central America; Brazil; the Andean area; India; China; Indonesia; East Africa; Southern Africa; West Africa; and Center East/North Africa.
However inequality primarily based on id exists globally. What we would have liked was to discover a solution to observe what these significant classes had been — and accomplish that whereas respecting authorized necessities in every nation about knowledge assortment on id. We additionally acknowledge that as a result of we wished to gather this data with particular classes for particular contexts, will probably be harder to speak in mixture about variety general for all of our grantees.
Making use of Demographic Knowledge Assortment in Localized Contexts
We started with our regional workplaces world wide and the employees inside them, asking what id classes had been most significant to them. Responses assorted throughout our regional workplaces, however they may typically be categorized into considered one of three teams:
Group 1: Places of work that believed race and ethnicity weren’t solely related to trace, however essential to their native context. For these, we tailored the classes to ones that might make sense for the areas. For instance:
For the Andean area, we use the next classes for race and ethnicity:
- Perteneciente a una comunidad Negro/a rural (Belonging to a Black rural neighborhood)
- Afrodescendiente urbano/a (City Afro-descendant)
- Moreno
- Perteneciente a un pueblo Indígena rural (Belonging to an Indigenous rural neighborhood)
- Perteneciente a un pueblo Indígena urbano/a (Belonging to an Indigenous city neighborhood)
- Persona de raza mixta o mestizo (Blended race)
- Persona romaní o gitano/a (Roma)
- Blanco/a (White)
- Unknown or decline to state
For South Africa, we use the next classes for race and ethnicity:
- Black
- White
- Coloured
- Indian/Asian
- Different
- Unknown or decline to state
Group 2: Places of work that didn’t view race and ethnicity as related to their native context, however the place there have been different drivers of inequality for which monitoring knowledge could be necessary. For instance:
For India, we use the next classes for caste or tribal group:
- Adivasi
- Bahujan
- Dalit
- Different
- Unknown or decline to state
For Indonesia, we used places throughout the nation in an effort to see distribution between the facility heart of Java and different areas of the nation.
- Bali
- Java
- Kalimantan
- Papua
- Sulawesi
- Sumatra
- Different area/island or not listed
- Unknown or decline to state
Group 3: Places of work the place there was concern that monitoring knowledge on race and ethnicity or different classes would possibly additional divides and will doubtlessly exacerbate tensions moderately than advance our efforts at fairness. Examples of this embrace Jap Africa and the Center East/North Africa. With a purpose to reply to those native considerations, we determined to restrict our knowledge assortment to only monitoring incapacity and gender.
Lastly, in an effort to abide by native authorized restrictions round accumulating and storing private knowledge (many nations exterior the U.S. have a lot stronger knowledge safety legal guidelines much like the extra well-known Basic Knowledge Safety Regulation EU legislation), we determined to restrict knowledge assortment to anonymized mixture knowledge that isn’t tied to a particular particular person. In follow, this implies we ask for mixture knowledge about a company’s board and government management groups, moderately than particular knowledge about an government director or board chair. For instance, we ask what number of girls are on a company’s board, not who on their board identifies as a girl.
For an entire checklist of all of the classes we landed on, please click on right here.
What We’re Studying from the Knowledge
This effort to develop our demographic knowledge assortment to our non-U.S. grantees was put into motion on the finish of 2022. After a full 12 months of knowledge assortment below this new framework, we are actually capable of start analyzing Ford’s expanded knowledge. With any rollout of recent processes, there shall be a studying curve within the first 12 months, particularly with one thing this advanced. One purpose for us this 12 months shall be to create instruments to assist our groups interrogate this knowledge higher and make that means of it throughout the contexts they’re funding.
We additionally acknowledge that this complete effort has been occurring towards the backdrop of a modified setting right here in america round variety, fairness, and inclusion (DEI). The Supreme Courtroom ruling final 12 months towards affirmative motion in school admissions and a rising backlash towards DEI efforts typically have many corporations and organizations both pulling again on their DEI commitments or at the least not sure of tips on how to navigate what has turn into an more and more unsure house. And plenty of have puzzled whether or not they need to be accumulating demographic knowledge in any respect as a part of grant functions.
For us, our reply has been a convincing “sure, and…” Sure, it’s more and more necessary for us to know who we’re funding, how they’re knowledgeable and accountable to these on the margins, and the way their work and establishments have modified over time to answer the communities they serve. And we wish to have the ability to perceive that exterior of the U.S. as properly.
As we talked about, with our new worldwide knowledge being collected with particular classes for particular contexts, will probably be difficult, if not inconceivable, to speak in mixture in regards to the variety of our grantees. For example, we’ll by no means have the ability to say {that a} sure proportion of our grant {dollars} goes to Individuals of Colour-led organizations globally, as a result of exterior of the U.S. that idea both seems to be very totally different or, relying on the nation, will not be relevant in any respect.
And that’s okay. We deliberately acknowledge that this knowledge will not be meant to be aggregated or analyzed as a complete. The choice — making use of U.S.-based race and ethnicity classes globally — would have meant that the info we’re accumulating could be principally meaningless for these sitting exterior of the U.S. Relatively, for us what’s necessary is ensuring that we’re deliberately excited about DEI and making use of that lens to our grantmaking and knowledge assortment in culturally-specific and significant methods.
We hope these reflections could be helpful for different world funders who’re battling comparable questions, and would recognize persevering with to be in dialog as our practices and pondering continues to evolve.
Eric Li is knowledge governance supervisor on the Ford Basis, Luc Athayde-Rizzaro is grantmaking effectiveness officer on the Ford Basis, and Bess Rothenberg is senior director of technique and studying on the Ford Basis.
