Philanthropy’s Blind Spot

Native communities receive less than one-half of 1% of philanthropic funding in the United States — roughly four or five dollars for every thousand dollars foundations give away.

In Episode 3 of Difference Makers 3.0, Brian Edwards speaks with Kevin Walker, President and CEO of the Northwest Area Foundation, about why Indian Country remains on the margins of mainstream philanthropy — and what changes when foundations choose to build deep relationships with Native communities.

Under Walker’s leadership, Northwest Area Foundation made a public commitment that 40% of its grant dollars go to Native-led organizations — a level of sustained investment that stands out in the philanthropic sector.

In this conversation, Walker reflects on how that decision emerged, what philanthropy often misunderstands about Indian Country, and why Native CDFIs represent one of the clearest opportunities for measurable economic impact.

In this episode:

• Why Native communities receive less than 0.5% of philanthropic funding
• How NWAF committed to directing 40% of its grants to Native-led organizations
• What philanthropy often gets wrong about Indian Country
• The difference between a deficit mindset and an opportunity mindset
• Why Native CDFIs are powerful drivers of local economic development
• How foundations can move beyond land acknowledgments toward real accountability

Reading & Resources:

🔗 Northwest Area Foundation
https://www.nwaf.org

🔗 NWAF Native-led work approach
https://www.nwaf.org/approach/native-led-work/

🔗 NWAF strategy supporting Native CDFIs
https://www.nwaf.org/approach/native-cdfis/

🔗 Native CDFI Network
https://nativecdfi.net

Difference Makers explores how Native community development financial institutions (CDFIs) are expanding economic opportunity across Indian Country. From small business lending and homeownership to consumer loans, financial education, and technical assistance, Native CDFIs provide the capital and support that help Native communities build stronger local economies.

Join the Native CDFI Network and Tribal Business News as they spotlight the people, partnerships, and ideas driving economic change in Native communities.

Transcript

Brian Edwards: 0:01

This episode starts with a really tiny fraction. Native communities receive less than one half of 1% of philanthropic funding in the United States. Think about it, for every $1,000 foundations give away Native communities see about four or five bucks, that gap isn't about lack of need or lack of talent. Certainly isn't about lack of impact. It points to something else, a blind spot in how mainstream philanthropy sees Indian country in this episode of Difference Makers 3.0 we're going to look at that blind spot and why Indian country remains on the margins. We're also going to discover what happens when foundations choose to see differently and act differently. Northwest Area Foundation is one of those philanthropic groups that's been seeing and acting differently under President and CEO Kevin Walker, the foundation made a public commitment that 40% of its grant dollars would go to Native led organizations, and it sustained that commitment for more than a decade. I spoke with Kevin about how that decision came about, what philanthropy often gets wrong about Indian country and what can happen when they do get it right? All right. Kevin, thanks so much for joining us.

Kevin Walker: 1:54

Oh, I'm glad to be here. Brian.

Brian Edwards: 1:55

So let's start with the history. When did Northwest Area Foundation first begin working with Native communities.

Kevin Walker: 2:01

You know, the origin is a little bit lost in the mists of our history. The Foundation was founded in 1934 with its origin in the wealth of the family that created the Great Northern Railway, and that railroad connected the Twin Cities into the Pacific Northwest. So it touched Indian country all along the way that enterprise was always in relation with Native people. And sometimes contentious in that relationship, sometimes exploitive in that relationship. When I arrived at the Foundation, which was not 1934 it was 2008 we were already in deep relationship with Native communities. Specifically, when I walked in the door in 2008 we were in deep, multi year partnerships with three Native nations — Lummi Nation, the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. Also, relatively recently, we had made the largest ever grant in the history of the foundation, which was to establish the Indian land tenure fund. I'm sorry, the Indian Land Tenure Foundation as an independent entity. So we were in deep relationship with Native partners. And there was pride within our organization about that. When I arrived, the team had recently done the numbers and realized that in the preceding decade, 30% of our giving had gone to Native led partners. So during my tenure, we leaned into our pride in that fact, and we decided to take it up a notch. And so the taking it up a notch amounted to me and my senior team and our board committing, back in 2012 that four out of every 10 grant dollars would go to Native led organizations, and we've been honoring that 40% commitment ever since then.

Brian Edwards: 4:04

So when you arrived, you mentioned both pride and some tension in relationships. What led the foundation to move from that 30% giving target to 40% in 2012.

Kevin Walker: 4:17

We had run afoul in some of our relationships in Indian country, our reputation had taken some hits. There were some Native leaders who were quite frustrated with the way the foundation had gone about its business. That was palpable. It was a known thing. So in the in the earliest set of goals I developed with our board, one of those goals was to rebuild our reputation in Indian country, and yet, at the same time, there was this pride in the organization that we were in, a position very few non native funders were in, where 30% of the giving had gone to native partners. That was a time, that was a that 30% had a timeframe to it. We were looking back. Over 10 years. So the decision to intensify the commitment came in that context. We realized that 10 year window, you know, time is going to keep moving, and there were some really big relationships and commitments that have been made during that prior 10 years. So what we recognized was, okay. We do want to mend our relationship with these partners, and we want to hold on to this connection with Native communities that is really important to us, given our mission and our purpose in the world. So we just realized, if we want to stay the course, we need to intensify our effort, and that's why we shifted to 40% there was no magic to it. We just thought, we're already at 30% let's commit to doing even more. And so that, that was how we ended up going that path. And our board was strongly supportive when we made that, that decision, in fact, there were no objections whatsoever around the board table, one senior member of the board, who was also a member of our founding family, simply offered the advice you may need to think differently about metrics. And I thanked him for that comment. And I said, So tell me more about what you mean. And he just repeated, you may need to think differently about metrics. And I think what he was pointing out, because he was somebody with significant experience working with Native communities himself, was that if we came in with a lot of assumptions about what evaluation needed to look like, what successful outcomes were going to look like that. The dynamics were going to be really tough. Whereas, if we came into relationship as learners and as CO creators of things with our native partners, we'd get a lot further.

Brian Edwards: 6:52

That really aligns with sovereignty and self determination and allyship, right? Yes, it aligns with all three of those things. That's right. So you became better listeners?

Kevin Walker: 7:02

Yes, and I should point out we have a set of values as an organization that we really believe in and try to live up to, and one of those is listen and learn for change. So listen, but not just for the sake of listening, learn, but not just for the sake of learning. It's all about positive change, and I do think we're a better listening organization today than we were, say, 15 years ago. It's been a journey to really learn how to show up as a learner and a listener, rather than as an expert.

Brian Edwards: 7:36

When you started thinking about metrics, what changed in how you measured success.

Kevin Walker: 7:41

We have been on a long journey, I would say, to change the dynamics of evaluation that funders used to bring to bear a lot. So we view ourselves as learning together with our grantee partners, as opposed to auditing whether they did the thing or not. So measures of success are co determined by us and the folks that we're investing in, and if we don't achieve some of those desired outcomes, we learn from that we don't view that in a punitive way. That's been that's been the basic shift. Also, we've shifted to the idea that any evaluation that we're participating in or supporting should be for the benefit of the grantee and their community, not an extractive process that allows us to feel satisfied as we sit in a board meeting trying to prove our worth to our board. A lot of what we track very scrupulously is simply where our grant dollars go.

Brian Edwards: 8:41

Let's go back to the metrics for a minute. Tell me specifically what you track now and why?

Kevin Walker: 8:46

Well, I should begin by explaining that we track really carefully where our grant dollars are flowing, and I'm not sure that all funders track that with as much care as we do. Meaning, are the dollars really going to organizations that are rooted in the communities we claim to be trying to serve? So for us, that 40% that I was citing, we only count a grant towards that if it is going to a native led grantee, if we made a grant to a university to study something in a native community, we wouldn't count it. That's that simple measure of who are we actually granting the dollars to is fundamental for us, and we don't just track it for native led organizations, our annual grant making, we tend to exceed about 90% to communities of color, meaning to organizations that are of I am for communities of color. So those basic measures of are we moving the dollars in alignment with our values and our strategy that's really important to us? It is that is not all. That is not always the case in philanthropy. It's a. Fairly common thing for a funder to be talking about trying to be of service to a community that then when you analyze who's actually receiving the grant dollars, you're surprised how low the percentage is that's actually going to organizations of by and for that community. So for us, that basic measure of, are we putting our money where our mouth is? Is fundamental. Beyond that, we really co create metrics with our grantee partners. So we try really hard not to impose a set of metrics that we've cooked up, but to talk with them about, how would you define success? What are you going for and how can we help you gage whether you're getting there? And then we know that much of the time in the real world, things don't really go exactly the way you wanted them to, or the way you thought they would. So you learn from that. You apply those lessons. That kind of ethos is what we try to bring to evaluation, much more than some sort of, you know, inspection kind of vibe

Brian Edwards: 11:03

Across those partnerships. Were there any common themes you hear from Native leaders about what success should look like?

Kevin Walker: 11:09

I think one thing we bear in mind is that work is done by people, so funders should be willing to fund the people power that it takes to do projects and communities. So some funders really shy away from paying what's known as indirect costs or paying salaries. And we don't take that view. I would say at this point in our evolution, more and more of our funding is general operating support to organizations who are sort of mission aligned with us, and then our grantee partners can choose at their own discretion where to where to deploy those dollars. So that's an expression of us understanding that, like we don't want to be a free rider, in a sense, we don't want to pay for some project that the organization is then scrambling to staff the work that it takes. We're happy to pay for. You know, our share. So to speak of that staffing capacity,

Brian Edwards: 12:11

Let's talk specifically about Native CDFIs. Over the past decade. How has the Foundation's relationship with Native CDFIs evolved? What have you learned?

Kevin Walker: 12:21

Some of the things that we've learned and adapted from are to really lean into Native CDFIs own ideas about innovation. In other words, what does it mean to be a financial institution serving their community? We're trying not to bring a lot of assumptions to that, because one of the more powerful moments I remember is when a Native CDFI leader was presenting to our board as part of a panel discussion over zoom. This was in the depths of the covid pandemic, and that that leader used the expression, we're not going to keep playing by your rules when we realize your rules are killing us. And she didn't mean us the Northwest Area Foundation. She meant the expectations of the broader economy and the broader ecosystem about what a Native CDFI should do. So for us, there's been a lot of learning about following our partners leads on what relevance to their community's needs look like. I think we've also learned from some of the Native CDFIs that we've been in relationship with to think bigger, like to to imagine bigger success than we might have thought was possible. There have been a number of examples of organizations that have grown and flourished beyond our initial expectations of what was possible. And that leads back to one of our sort of core values, which is to really try to take an asset based approach, to see communities as places of opportunity, as opposed to, you know, only seeing the deficits there. What I like to say when people are asking me about this is that my experience is that working effectively with Native partners, requires that funders do what we would like to say we always do like the things that people would often say make good philanthropy are even more important in this context, listen really carefully and long Before you start speaking and show up and build the relationship those three very simple things. I do think a lot of funders, myself included, would say, oh, that's how we operate, but it's not always how we operate, or at least not consistently. And my experience has been that those three things. Scrupulously keeping your word doing what you say you're going to do, listening long and hard before you strategize or express your own opinion and build a relationship by showing up repeatedly, it's absolutely essential. And so to me that that is fundamental to what works, what doesn't work is to fall short on those simple rules of the road. They're simple, but they're not actually easy to do. The other thing that doesn't work in my in my opinion, as funders are trying to be of use in Indian country, is to take a deficit, bring a deficit lens to air. I think that's part of why many funders, many foundations, are in almost no relationship with Native communities, because they have a deficit mindset about those communities.

Brian Edwards: 15:54

What does that mean? Deficit mindset?

Kevin Walker: 15:57

It means that I've encountered a lot of folks who have little or no experience in Native communities, and what they think they know is all of the negative stuff, poverty, drug issues, the turbulence of tribal politics, all of that stuff. People have this sort of undigested sense of like, oh, there's a lot of challenge there. And my response to that is, there's a lot of challenge everywhere. But try to try to understand the assets of these communities. The assets that I see often, always, really, in Native communities and Native organizations, is people who are deeply resourceful, talented people who, for their whole lives or their whole careers, have been making things happen without enough resource that's often a very under invested space by players like foundations. So what I've encountered again and again is unbelievably talented people who have not been able to attract the level of investment to really take things forward as boldly as they would like to that is an incredible opportunity for funders. If you can come to the table and say, Tell me what it is you're dreaming and help me figure out how we can help you do that. That's what I mean by bringing the mindset of abundance as opposed to a deficit mindset, I think that some non-Native funders stay away from Native communities, partly because they sense that, oh well, the problems are just too deep. There's nothing we can do. First of all, that's not true, but I also think it fundamentally misses what the opportunity is, which is to bring some resources into a space that's been under resourced, and that is rich with really talented, resourceful people who are just looking for partners to help them move their vision forward.

Brian Edwards: 17:55

One thing I've learned covering Native CDFIs is that it's not just what they do, it's how they do it. It's relationship based, it's long term. It's community first. And when you look closely, the impact is tangible. It's businesses growing, jobs created, it's money staying in the community instead of leaking out. So if that impact is real and measurable. Why do you think so many funders still default to seeing Native communities through this lens of need instead of a lens of opportunity?

Kevin Walker: 18:30

No, no, I You what you said is exactly what I was trying to name. And as a contrast to that, let me share a story from many years ago. I was in a meeting maybe 15 years ago that had been convened by a native led funding organization. They pulled together 10 or 15 of us who worked for non native foundations to talk about, you know, what would it take to drive more investment in Indian Country by philanthropy and one of the participants in that meeting worked for one of the largest foundations in the country, and that person's comment was the people I work for, by which he meant, the living donors of his foundation are not compelled By statements of need. They're compelled by opportunity for impact. That's the mistake in perception right there. When you look at Native communities, it's all about need. It's not about opportunity for impact, whereas that is, it's almost the opposite of what we see at Northwest Area Foundation. What we see is very talented people, very committed, resourceful people who have been under resourced That, to me, is a huge opportunity for impact. And Native CDFIs are one of the shining examples of the way that that sector has flourished and has brought economic opportunity and development in a Native, controlled way to their. Communities over the years since that sector has been in existence, is just a great example.

Brian Edwards: 20:06

I mean, like I said, one of the things that stands out to me about Native CDFIs is that the impact is tangible. They're lifting up their communities.

Kevin Walker: 20:16

Yes, absolutely. One of the stories that we lift up fairly often is about the Pine Ridge Reservation and the Lakota fund. When Lakota fund was founded back in the 80s as maybe the first Native CDFI, I'm not sure I have the history completely correct, but there was just a small handful of Native owned, private businesses on the reservation. And the last time somebody from there was telling me this story, the number they were citing was above 500 Native owned business enterprises on the reservation. That is unbelievably powerful progress. And yet, back to the deficit mindset, there are plenty of non Native folks from outside that community who, if they think they know anything about Pine Ridge, it's negative stuff. It's not that that journey has happened to me. That's a great example of the power of Native CDFIs as drivers of change.

Brian Edwards: 21:17

Let's talk about the broader climate for a minute. During the Biden administration, we saw more attention to equity and tribal sovereignty. Did that shift how the foundation operated at all?

Kevin Walker: 21:28

No, I think that for us, it was a period of optimism. Some of the more prominent exciting developments were Deb Haaland serving as Secretary of the Interior a former Northwest Area Foundation Board member named sack ducheneau headed up the Farm Service Administration within USDA, the first Native person ever to hold that critical position. So at the level of policy and at the level of personnel, there was a sense of possibility and progress that we were really happy to be a part of and to be supportive of. I was with a Native leader, and he was speaking from a stage at an event and was reflecting on this shift that's occurred from one administration to the next. And his comment was, we're used to thinking in generations, not in administrations. I find that a comforting thought. You know what I mean. So pendulums do tend to swing. Periods of forward progress are often followed by a little bit of a retrenchment. I am trying to follow his lead and think longer term than just administration a, administration B, but it is certainly true that that period was one of real possibility and forward progress, but I wouldn't say that it changed our approach so much as it encouraged us that we weren't alone in thinking carefully about how to be of use in any country.

Brian Edwards: 23:04

Now in the current administration, the philanthropic climate feels more cautious, especially around anything that's labeled as DEI. Are you seeing funders pull back?

Kevin Walker: 23:15

Yeah, I am seeing that, and I have some sympathy for it, we at Northwest Area Foundation have determined that we are who we are, and there is no there's no watering down of our purpose. Our mission includes the notions of racial, social and economic justice that's right there in our mission statement, and we have been really enthusiastically embracing what we call Jedi, which is justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, for many years. It's fundamental to our values, and we believe that what we're doing and who we're funding and that it's all not only proper, but impactful and in keeping with what we're about in the world. I think a lot of funders are trying to figure out how they continue to do their work and be of use for their grantees and their communities in an environment that does feel somewhat threatening. So it's not irrational for people to be nervous, but it is disappointing to me when I see funders stepping back from organizations or communities that they have been in relationship with, unless the reason is other than, Oh, now we're just nervous. Like, why did we get into the relationship in the first place? It is a very challenging environment. There is a sense all across the nonprofit and philanthropic sector that the current administration has some hostility towards what we sometimes call the independent sector. My view is that a vibrant, independent civil society is one of the things that makes. Makes America strong. So, yeah, we're going to continue doing what we do and supporting organizations who are aligned with our purpose. I hope that other funders can find that pathway as well. The other thing that we did at Northwest Area Foundation is increased our payout in 2025 we doubled our grants budget in order to try to be responsive in the moment to the pressures that the communities that we're here to serve are experiencing, and we plan to maintain that enhanced level of giving in 2026 we are designed to exist in perpetuity, so we know we need to manage our assets for the long term, but in the immediate term, it is possible to do more. We are proudly doing more over the next several years.

Brian Edwards: 25:49

When you look ahead 10 or 20 years, what do you hope philanthropy's relationship with Indian country will look like?

Kevin Walker: 25:56

To begin at the beginning, I would love it if all of philanthropy would recognize our relationship with Native communities, with Indian country, with Native land, every foundation that is based in the United States, there's a story there about who's whose original lands are you on, and is your institution in any kind of relationship with those people. The connection between the land and the people and foundations is a really important one for us all to try to illuminate. And for the Northwest Area Foundation, this is a pretty easy story to get a bead on, because of what I shared at the beginning, the wealth of our foundation is rooted in railroad enterprise. And so the connection between the Great Northern Railway, which was established by James J Hill, whose son, started the Northwest Area Foundation, the wealth that that railroad enterprise generated, is intertwined with the dispossession of Native people and with the struggles of Native communities in the eight states that that railroad enterprise once touched. Don't have to look terribly hard to say there's a connection between the Northwest Area Foundation's assets and the dispossession of Native people. So we're telling that story. I want to encourage my peers in philanthropy to look for their own version of that story and to get in relationship with Native people in whatever places they serve, as opposed to missing the existence of Native people. If you allow the Native community to be invisible, you're just worsening the harm. So, yeah, what I hope philanthropies relationship in Native communities looks like 20 years from now is that everybody in this philanthropic sector is saying, Oh, of course, we're in relation with Native people.

Brian Edwards: 27:58

So as you think about the future, where do Native CDFIs fit into philanthropy? What would you tell your peers?

Kevin Walker: 28:05

What I often do tell folks, I encounter a fair number of non native funders who are just a little bit mystified by our story. About 40% of our grant dollars going to native led organizations. I also still encounter a fair amount of what I would have to call fear and avoidance, people who just view native communities as too complex, too remote from them. The first response I often offer to that is you should get to know native CDFIs, get an understanding of what they're doing, and start there. I think tribal colleges are another great example of this. Start with this existing organizational infrastructure and partner with them and see what happens. I don't think that the good work of Native CDFIs is widely enough known. These organizations are are changing an unfair game for their community. They are making fair participation in the economy possible in places where it really hasn't been. This is about economic opportunity. I have yet to meet the funder who doesn't believe in economic opportunity. So yeah, we at Northwest Area Foundation will continue to sort of beat the drama on the fact that Native CDFIs are resourceful, adaptive, creative institutions that are filling a really fillable gap, right? It is possible to make fair participation in the economy more broadly available in Native communities, but those Native CDFIs need help. They need resources. They need partners.

Brian Edwards: 29:47

Thanks for taking time to walk us through all of this.

Kevin Walker: 29:50

Well. Thanks, Brian. I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me about what we've been trying to do.

Brian Edwards: 29:58

After that conversation, a few things feel more clear. Philanthropy doesn't have an information problem. When it comes to Indian country, it has a relationship problem. For too long, native communities have been treated as complicated, risky or invisible, but as Kevin Walker reminds us, the real story isn't about deficit, it's about opportunity. Native CDFIs are living proof of that opportunity. They're proving that economic development in Indian country isn't theoretical. It's measurable, it's scalable, and it works. So the real question isn't whether philanthropy can make an impact in Indian country. The question is whether it's willing to show up, listen and invest for the long term. Next time on difference makers 3.0 we're going to move from philanthropic capital to investment capital and look at what collaboration can build on the ground. That's episode four, the flour mill. Difference makers 3.0 is a co production of the Native CDFI network and tribal business news thanks to Pete Upton and his super excellent team at the Native CDFI network, Kristen Wagner, Shauntel Hogan, Pamela Boivin and Stephanie Prater, of course, thanks to the Native StoryLab team, especially Kristin Lilya, a proud member of the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa — she's our project manager, wrangler in chief, and recording expert. Thanks also to the incomparable Elyse wild. She's working behind the mic this season as our sound editor and serving as our podcast maven. Check the show notes for links and more. Thanks for listening. See you next time you.