Inside Philanthropy’s Post

Ecosystems are complex, interrelated systems where every organism plays a valuable role. 🔄🌱 Across the country, we are seeing funders embrace the power of ecosystems. Philanthropy is embodying a powerful shift from being the center of social change efforts to working in close partnership with the broader ecosystem of stakeholders necessary to sustain lasting change. ➡️ Check out our latest piece about how funders are increasingly acting as a facilitator, connector, and learner in a larger ecosystem of actors working to create lasting, systems-level change. #philanthropy #foundation #socialimpact #strategy

This recent Stanford Social Innovation Review article sparked a vigorous debate within the philanthropic community. It criticised traditional strategic philanthropy, arguing that it has failed to address pressing social and environmental issues. This critique ignited strong reactions, with defenders of the model offering counterarguments. However, a deeper dive into the original article by Mark Kramer and Steve Phillips reveals a more nuanced perspective. While it challenged the status quo, it also advocated for a shift towards “empowerment philanthropy.” This approach aligns closely with the principles of trust-based philanthropy, which I often advocate and are central to our philanthropic pooled funds. Trust-based philanthropy supports communities in driving their own solutions, leading to increased impact, efficiency, and learning. In addition, it benefits the funders by maximising their resources, stimulating innovation and enhancing their reputation as effective partners for social change. Ultimately, the core issue is about power dynamics. Whether labelled strategic, empowerment, or trust-based, effective philanthropy should relinquish control to beneficiaries and create an environment where they can thrive. This fundamental shift in mindset is essential for achieving lasting social change. #philanthropy #socialchange #socialimpact #socialinvestment

💡 Prize philanthropy *can* be responsible philanthropy. By sharing some of the best practices we’ve seen in this space, we can continue improving on competition design and move the needle on critical social issues together 💫 Check out what we've learned: https://lnkd.in/gM7xQw-u

🌐✨ Dive into the world of Modern Philanthropy! 🤝 Explore the evolution of strategies for greater impact and the intergenerational transfer of wealth's implications on nonprofits and society. Uncover the symposium's insights into philanthropy's role in creating social impact and shaping the future. Read more: https://lnkd.in/g7_KFcap #Xanara #Philanthropy #PhilanthropyEvolution #SocialChange #SocialResponsibility #WealthManagement #FamilyOffice #AssetManagement

High-net-worth (HNW) individuals find themselves at a crucial crossroads. The opportunity to drive significant social change through philanthropy is immense, yet the traditional pathways of giving no longer suffice. Today’s philanthropy is dynamic, extending beyond mere donations. It’s about creating a lasting impact, fostering innovation, and engaging with communities in transformative ways. #hnw #philanthropy #legacyplanning #wealthmanagement #hnwi #familyoffice https://lnkd.in/eQiQpaj9

This is a really fantastic, important must-read from Mark Kramer and Steve Phillips- and yet another reason to #FundFemaleFounders: 'This failure of strategic philanthropy, we believe, is rooted in a set of assumptions that originated more than a century ago and still shape our nonprofit sector today: that the beneficiaries of philanthropic support are incapable of solving their own problems, that wealthy donors have the wisdom and incentive to solve society’s many challenges, and that the social sector is an effective alternative to government in building an equitable and sustainable society. Mounting evidence suggests that these assumptions are wrong. Individuals, even those living in poverty, are able to improve their lives with modest amounts of unrestricted cash payments and support from their peers. Wealthy donors often lack the lived experience to understand the problems they attempt to solve and may sidestep deeper solutions that undermine their own wealth and privilege. .... Mark long ago concluded that philanthropists’ most effective role might not be to devise solutions to societal problems but rather to underwrite an open-ended process for change. ... 'Many philanthropists have implicitly accepted the idea that their financial success in business reflects superior wisdom that is transferable to leading social change. But where is the evidence that skills in business and social progress are interchangeable?' You'll like this, William Charnock. Stanford Social Innovation Review https://lnkd.in/e8B2jVPS

Reflecting on two articles from my feed—Brenda S.’s “Rigorous Evaluation Versus Trust-Based Learning: Is This a Valid Dichotomy?” and Lora Smith’s “How to Flip the Script on Foundation Reporting”. These pieces critique how status quo evaluation, often rooted in capitalist ROI frameworks (credit to Jara Dean-Coffey (she/her/hers)’s work on the origins of philanthropic evaluation in the practices of wealthy, white male industrialists), reinforces power imbalances and fails to capture the unpredictable, long-term nature of social change. (All articles linked in the comments.) Both articles emphasize that funder accountability is essential, especially considering the origins of philanthropic wealth and how it is currently invested. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s Cracks in the Foundation research, led by my colleague Katherine Ponce, MBA, MS and others, shows how wealth that made philanthropy possible in the DC area came at the expense of Black residents. As Smith points out, in 2020, US foundations invested $1.2T in global extractive markets, while only giving away $88.6B to grantees. These extractive markets often perpetuate the harms philanthropy aims to repair, making it even more important for funders to examine their investments and hold themselves accountable to communities. Most funders require grantee reporting as a one-way stream, and community-based orgs with fewer resources often struggle to meet these demands. While few funders fully embrace this, it’s vital to ask grantees what they need to succeed and build community accountability into funder practices. A project I worked on a while back flipped this dynamic by shifting focus to ask grantee partners how the funder could better support them—a dialogue that led to real changes in how the foundation engaged with grantees. I love Solorzano’s discussion of similar tools and Smith’s example of the Right Relations Collaborative, led by Indigenous leaders, which challenges funders to reflect on their “money stories” to shift their practices. Similarly, often funding and consequentially evaluation is short-term and assumes linearity. A colleague recently told me that one thing he’s learned from our work together is that “change is never A, then B, then C. It’s X, then A (‘F you’), and then 7!” This encapsulates the reminder that social change is never linear. It also takes time. For example, in advocacy work, short-term outcomes often don’t reflect the full impact of movement-building. Big wins can take years, but there’s essential work happening beneath the surface. Looking only for immediate outcomes risks undermining long-term strategies for deep, systemic change. Ultimately, these articles challenge us to rethink how we approach learning and accountability in philanthropy and evaluation. It’s not about short-term outputs—it’s about focusing on long-term change and ensuring that communities, not funders, control their futures. #Evaluation #ResponsivePhilanthropy

Social change is complex and takes time. So why do traditional approaches to evaluation still dominate philanthropy? Brenda S.', President and CEO of The California Endowment, examines the debate between rigorous evaluation and a trust-based approach in a recent Center for Effective Philanthropy article. Brenda describes her journey as a funder and how it led her to a new way of thinking, one rooted in three trust-based pillars of evaluation. Read more about this innovative approach and how "it will get all of us — funders, grantees, and communities alike — to a place of more honesty, greater impact, and community-informed transformation." #TrustBasedPhilanthropy #SocialImpact #Philanthropy #SVP https://lnkd.in/g2XvmFGy

This excellent thought leadership piece about philanthropic myths we need to bust is more black-hatted than a lot of the optimistic columns produced in January commenting on the year ahead. Devon Kearney in the Alliance magazine says the following three myths can reduce the effectiveness of philanthropy if left unexamined: 1. The work of philanthropy will bring about a just world (nope, new targets of oppression will emerge); 2. The growth of philanthropy is a sign of a more humane world (not when it's due to the system supporting the rich becoming richer/greater inequality); 3. Achieving social justice is about finding the right strategy for change (hedge your bets as it'll be many different approaches that contribute to progress). They speak to the complexity funders from any sector face, and the challenges that those planning and delivering the funded services are up against. Funders need to prioritise what they give to, given the diverse and high community need - but Devon points out that they should still give attention to other areas so as not to leave them dangerously weak. "This will be unsatisfying: However we triangulate, there will always be more that could be done, and, sadly, work that ought to be taken up but isn’t. Such is our dilemma." Sobering, but reassuring in the sense that it puts into words the reality of the environment for funders, community groups and activists. If it feels hard, it's because it is. If it feels simple, you're missing something!

The top stories in social impact in this week's #FridayFive -- Week of 5/27 👉 Where Strategic Philanthropy Went Wrong 👉 The State of Diversity in the Nonprofit Sector Report 👉 The State of Nonprofits Report examines burnout and fiscal challenges 👉 RWJ’s $325M pushes Impact Investing into the spotlight 👉 A funder listened to grantees and what came next ONE The founder of FSG has proclaimed that “Strategic Philanthropy Has Failed” and offers his take on the next strategy trend model in the social sector. So we go from Collective Impact, to Trust-Based Philanthropy, now to “Empowerment Philanthropy.” via Stanford Social Innovation Review bit.ly/3VnqzC7 TWO “ The State of Diversity in the U.S. Nonprofit Sector ” report released by Candid is the largest demographic study of the nonprofit sector, based on diversity information provided by nearly 60,000 public charities. bit.ly/3WZR55X THREE The Center for Effective Philanthropy this week issued a new report on the State of Nonprofits in the U.S. which spotlights the prevalence of both leadership burnout and fiscal challenges post-COVID. So what role can funders play to help? bit.ly/4bXPLEQ FOUR Over the next three years, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is sinking $325M in impact investing — the “double bottom line” investments meant to generate both financial and social returns—pushing the practice further into the spotlight. via The Chronicle of Philanthropy of Philanthropy bit.ly/3V31TgU FIVE Australia-based Minderoo Foundation commissioned a Grantee Perception Report from CEP to understand how their grantees viewed them. What they learned when they listened transformed their systems-level granting. bit.ly/3X56cei