By Ade Oguntoye

In the most recent decade, the concept of Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) has gained traction as a lens through which systems respond to actions and behaviors of individuals. It asks the question ‘what  happened to the individual,’ and does not simply focus on what they did, but the circumstances  surrounding the actions. TIC then addresses the impact of those traumatic experience. Some  institutions, including philanthropy, have started to apply TIC to reformation of their institutions,  creation of policies and funding of organizations.  

Using TIC as a vehicle for philanthropy has resulted in racial equity trainings, new strategic plans and the  creation of social justice funds. Philanthropic institutions have recognized that there must be changes to  the way that they give and operate. These changes are welcomed by many of the social justice organizations even as they ask for philanthropy to hold themselves accountable.  

To be clear, most of these changes have amounted to harm reduction on the part of philanthropy. Harm  reduction does not equal healing and will not address the social challenges philanthropy wants to  address. Because philanthropy has not acknowledged the trauma we have inflicted on non-profits and  non-profit leaders, we have not been able to use our resources to do more than reduce the harm.  

Requiring leaders to use deficit-based framing for generations, to receive funding, cannot simply be  repaired by instituting a racial equity policy or promotion of Black leadership. The structure of  philanthropy, that centers us as the experts while asking those doing the work each day to prove  themselves worthy of our resources has done harm to the ecosystem of philanthropic leaders and the  strategies they have had to develop to receive significant funding. 

A different paradigm is needed in philanthropy that asks more than what happened to an individual or  system. Healing-centered approaches ask, ‘why did what happen to a person, happen.’ Using this approach, we  can treat the individual so that they are able to cope within an oppressive system. TIC can be deemed  successful if the harm an individual or system is doing is minimized.  

Healing-centered approaches require that which caused the harm to be addressed. It focuses on the  aspirational outcomes that a person would seek as a fully healed individual.  

That is why when we formed The Imperative, our mission statement went further than harm reduction.  Our strategies of wealth, health and social connections are asset based and not simply the reduction of  policies and practices that have undermined Black people’s ability to thrive. Our structure of being  Black-led AND Black-focused now and into the future, signals something different and healing to Black  leadership. The knowledge that this institution will be always focused on the well-being of Black people,  is itself healing. 

That philanthropy must evolve is not a controversial statement under the backdrop of the “racial  reckoning” that resulted from the murders or George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and so many others. How it  should evolve is more the question. Our stake in the ground is that philanthropy must be healing-centered. Philanthropy has to recognize that asking the question, ‘why did this happen’ is important. In Black communities, answering the question of why will require Black leaders to develop strategies that are specifically tailored to achieving real self-determination and liberation.

In our new fellowship program, we will spend significant time on healing, acknowledging and addressing internalized oppression before strategies are sought so that those fellows can bring their full  selves to the work. Our outcomes will necessarily look different as a result of doing things differently.