Two weeks ago, I met with a colleague who was invited to a convening of funders in Seattle. He reported that the funders present were wringing their hands, unsure of what their foundations should be doing to respond to the rapid dismantling of democracy and the exponential increase in suffering communities are facing.
This week, David Callahan of Inside Philanthropy wrote a post on LinkedIn reporting similar dynamics of tentativeness among funders across the sector. David suggests several possible reasons for the hesitation, including shellshock from the cruelty and chaos unleashed by this administration, as well as funders’ lack of knowledge and confidence as to what strategies would work to counter it. While David and I agree on a lot of things, it’s this last point he makes where we may differ in opinions:
“Third, there’s only so much that funders can or should do to lead. Philanthropy’s main role is to support civil society groups, who rightly should be out front in the pushback to Trump’s actions. If those organizations aren’t coalescing around a set of promising big strategies — and there’s no sign they are — funders have limited options. They can’t bankroll grand new plans to fight MAGA if such plans don’t yet exist.
“Or, as one foundation CEO told me, ‘People keep yelling at us to give out more money, but for what?’”
This is frustrating that some funders still think this way. Because civil society groups and progressive activists HAVE BEEN proposing plans and strategies to push back against the right and advance democracy. FOR LITERAL DECADES! We have asked for more funding for advocacy and lobbying. For capacity building of both c3s and c4 orgs. For increasing political engagement. For doing media and narrative work. For strengthening pipelines of progressive leaders. Funders just refused to fund it in any meaningful level or for an adequate length of time!
I remember 15 years ago begging foundations in Seattle (one of the most well-funded regions in the world) for grants to do voter registration work and being shot down because it didn’t “align” with their “priorities” for that year. Decades of our ideas being rejected have trained many of us to stop approaching funders with strategies we think would work, because we have known, through painful experience, that many funders are mired in toxic intellectualizing, risk-aversion, white moderation, and solutions privilege—things that make most philanthropic leaders unable to mentally register strategies, much less support them.
David proposes, “The top funders in liberal philanthropy should make a pact with grantees: You all work together to devise ambitious new blueprints to save democracy that can plausibly succeed, and we will foot the bill — whatever it costs.”
…
Read full article here.
