RACIAL JUSTICE AUDIT 2024
“The audit has highlighted helpful trends, but also uncomfortable ones. It has allowed us to start an equity-based approach where we intentionally target communities that need us the most, communities who have historically not benefitted from funders. Thank you to FREA.”
Funder and member of FREA, 2024
The Racial Justice Audit is a tool that aims to answer the questions of “how much funding is actually going to the race equality sector? And what does this funding look like?”
One of FREA’s key objectives is to increase sustainable and flexible funding for Black and Minoritised-led organisations and communities experiencing racial inequity. The Racial Justice Audit enables funders to:
Identify the trends, patterns and how much funding addresses racial justice work*
Produce a snapshot of current portfolios and create a baseline to track funding on a yearly basis
Implement targets and strategies to ensure funders are advancing racial justice work
Allow greater transparency of current foundation expenditure.
The 2024 Racial Justice Audit reviewed grants from 20 funders, revealing progress and persistent disparities within racial justice funding.
This is the fifth Cohort of funders to complete the audit.
A big thank you to FREA’s working group who, alongside the Secretariat, created the Racial Justice Audit and dedicated their time and expertise to developing this ground-breaking tool.
If you are a funder who is looking to embed anti-racism in your grantmaking, get in touch (frealliance@equallyours.org.uk) and complete the audit to join the campaign for increasing sustainable and flexible funding for racial justice.
Key Findings of Cohort 5 (2024)
62% of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, went to organisations led by people from communities experiencing racial inequity, which represents an increase from Cohort 3 (2022) which had the number at 49%.
On average, the largest grants were awarded to organisations led by Black/African/Caribbean people and communities (with an average grant value of £93,800). However, when we look at grants that specifically do not intend to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, Asian/Asian British led organisations receive higher grant amounts of £89.9K, on average.
It’s encouraging to see that the average value of grants intended to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity is 16% greater than grants not intended for that key purpose. However, the difference is smaller than last year, which was 23%.
27% of the grants audited were designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity. This is the same percentage from Cohort 4 in 2023 (27%). However, when we look closely at the monetary value of these percentages, Cohort 5 amounted to £40 million, whereas Cohort 4 was £17.5 million.
Over 70% of grants (benefiting communities experiencing of racial inequity) address the consequences of racial inequity, whilst only 21% address the root causes. In comparison to Cohort 4 (2023), the number of grants addressing root causes has fallen by 15%.
Previous Audit Results
In 2024, 20 funders completed the Racial Justice Audit.
A total of 1,813 grants, with a combined value of £133.3 million, were submitted to FREA between July and September 2024.
Graph 1 – Average value of grant audited by funders in the 2024 Racial Justice Audit
Comic Relief represented the largest share of the total audited funds with £21.9 million (16.4%).
Sported represented the smallest share of the total audited funds with £0.2 million (0.1%).
Graph 2 – Percentage of total value of grants audited
Cohort 5 (2024) had the highest number of participating funders, with 20 funders completing the audit.
In contrast, Cohort 2 (2021), with only 7 participating funders, had the largest grant sample, totalling £148.7 million.
Graph 3 – Number of funders and total grant value by Cohort
The spike in the number of grants in Cohort 2 may also be due to the more rapid response of funders during Covid-19 and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, giving out emergency grants to meet immediate needs.
Please see our quantitative analysis of the emergency funding to the UK Black and Minority Ethnic voluntary sector during COVID-19: Access the PDF here
DATA RESULTS
Cohort 5
Grant purpose: Is the grant designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity?
Graph 4 – Is the grant designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity?
27% of total grants audited are designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity. These grants totalled £40 million.
NOTE: 36 grants were excluded as they had no data entered for this field.
Graph 5 – Cross Cohort comparison of percentage of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity
There has been no change in comparison to Cohort 4 (2023), where 27% of grants were designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity.
In comparison to Cohort 3 (2022), where 46% of grants were classified by funders as benefiting communities experiencing racial inequity, there has been a 19% decrease.
This can be understood by two influencing factors:
The Racial Justice Audit has strengthened the definition of ‘grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequality’. This has resulted in more accurate data which better reflects the realities of the grantmaking landscape.
The audits sampled in the Cohort 3 (2022) was during the pandemic and during the aftermath of the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, and during a time where members of the philanthropic sector and race equality organisations called on funders to make a commitment to more and longer-term funding.
Breakdown of average grant size and beneficial purpose
Graph 6 – Average value of grant by purpose and ethnic and racial grouping of community served
When we look at the value of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity by the ethnic and racial groups of community beneficiaries, we can see that:
Asian/Asian British communities on average, receive the lowest value of grants. This suggests an overall lack of focus of grants going to these communities.
The highest average value of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity goes towards Black/African and Caribbean communities. However, for grants that are not intended to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, Black/African and Caribbean communities receive the smallest average value.
On average, grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, have higher grant values in comparison to grants that are not intended for that purpose.
When we look at grants not designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, we see that there is a large gap in the amount of funding going to General Population/not sure in comparison with other ethnic and racialised groups.
Length and size of grants by purpose
Graph 7 – Average grant value by grant length and purpose
On average, the highest valued grants are 4 - 5 years long and are not intended to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity.
For grants that are designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, the highest average grant value is a year longer, but is around £95,000 less, than grants not intended for that purpose.
This illustrates that longer grants with higher values continue to favour funding that does not have a racial justice focus.
NOTE: 1 funder did not have grant date data and were therefore excluded from this part of the analysis.
A zoom in on grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity
1. Length of grant
Graph 8 – Percentage of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity by grant length, with a comparison between Cohort 4 (2023) and Cohort 5 (2024)
In Cohort 4 (2023), 0% of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity were awarded for 5 plus years. In Cohort 5 (2024), 1% of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity were awarded for 5 plus years.
However, Cohort 5 shows a significant increase in the number of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity that last 3 - 4 years (11%), and there is a decrease in the number of grants awarded for a year or less.
2. Ethnic and racial grouping of community beneficiaries
Black/African/Caribbean beneficiaries receive on average the largest proportion of grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity that are 5+ years long.
Graph 9 – Average value and length of grant by ethnic and racial grouping of community beneficiaries
3. Does the grant address consequences or root causes of racial inequity?
Graph 10 – Grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity by addressing root causes or consequences with a comparison between Cohort 5 (2024) and Cohort 4 (2023)
71% of grants intended to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity are designed to address the consequences of racial inequity with 22% addressing root causes. The remaining grants were classified as ‘neither/unknown’.
Despite only 22% of grants addressing the root causes of racial inequity, on average these grants have double the value as grants addressing consequences.
Additionally, grants addressing the root causes of racial inequity were often awarded for a longer period of time (on average, by an extra 6 months).
However, in comparison to Cohort 4 (2023), the number of grants addressing root causes has fallen by 15%.
4. Project type
Graph 11 – Average grant value by project type
When looking at the average grant value by project type, we see that core/unrestricted funding and campaigning/influencing have the highest average grant values.
Capital projects have the lowest average grant value.
Graph 12 – Average grant size by project type and aim to address root causes or consequences of racial inequity
The highest average value of grants that tackle root causes of racial inequity goes to core/unrestricted funding.
The highest average value of grants that tackle consequences of racial inequity goes to campaigning/ influencing.
Over 70% of grants, that are designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, have a focus on tackling consequences of racial inequity; however, the average grant value for grants that tackle root causes of racial inequity are much higher than grants with a focus on consequences.
Community cohesion/understanding and individual capacity building have the lowest average grant value across root causes, consequences and neither.
Organisational leadership
Graph 13 – Percentage of total grants by ethnic and racial grouping of organisational leadership
78% of total grants audited go to organisations led by General population/not sure.
Only 9% of total grants audited went to Black/African/Caribbean led organisations. However, Black/African/Caribbean led organisations receive the highest average grant value (of £93,8000).
Only 2% of total grants audited went to Asian/Asian British led organisations. However, for grants that are not designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity (73% of total grants audited), Asian/Asian British led organisations receive the highest average grant value of £89,000.
Graph 14 – Percentage of total grants by ethnic and racial grouping of community beneficiaries
76% of total grants audited went to community beneficiaries in the ethnic and racial grouping of ‘General population/not sure’.
The distribution of grants across the ethnic and racial groupings of community beneficiaries is almost identical to the distribution of grants across the ethnic and racial groupings of organisational leadership.
Graph 15 – A cross Cohort analysis of percentage of total grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity that go to by and for led organisations
When we look at organisational leadership within grants designed to benefit communities experiencing racial inequity, we can see a positive increase in the amount of funding going towards by and for led organisations over the last 5 years. Since 2020, there has been a 40% increase in the percentage of funding going towards by and for led organisations.
In Cohort 5 (2024), 72% of organisations whose community beneficiaries are Black/African/Caribbean, are led by people with the same ethnic and racial grouping. This is the highest percentage that are led by and for out of the other ethnic and racial groupings audited.
If you’re a funder, and would like to complete the 2025 Racial Justice Audit get in touch!
A message from our Co-Chairs
As FREA share the 2024 Racial Justice Audit analysis, we reflect on the brutal shift in narrative this summer.
This year, our members, a diverse group of funding organisations, networks and individuals working together to achieve race equality in the UK, have collectively and transparently continued to address systemic funding inequities by implementing revised strategies and improved grantmaking practices.
We also lived through violent, targeted demonstrations of hate and racism.
In this context, we are immensely grateful to all of you who took the time to engage with us, whether by completing our audit or joining us in conversations. To racial justice organisations providing infrastructure support, research, service delivery and more we thank you profusely for your reliable and honest collaborative support.
Data collection remains a critical tool for meaningful conversations, accountable practices and long-lasting change.
Thank you warmly for being with us in this project.
Esmeralda Gambelli and Nelly Koko-Konan
Clarifications
No individual funder data is published in the Alliance’s findings.
*We understand and recognise that there can be differing views on terminology and how best to discuss the race equality agenda. “Black and Minoritised” was the language chosen when the tool was initially developed in 2019 after consulting race equality campaigners and advocates in order to ensure consistency with the sector. However, we are conscious of the evolution of language, identity and limitations of these terms, as well as the sensitivities and complexities involved. We endeavour to constantly review this language for future work.
**The criteria used to classify a Black and Minoritised-led organisation required that organisations have both a mission and purpose to benefit Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities and the majority of their leadership (at 75% of the senior team and the Trustee board) are from the Minoritised community(ies) the organisation serves.