How relevant are Foundations to the public good in today’s stressed and complex environment?
I have been thinking about this question lately as I speak to Canadian foundation leaders across the country for a new book.
The Canadian philanthropic scene shares many elements with philanthropy in the US and in Europe:
You could also say that across countries we share many of the same challenges: the chaotic impacts of climate change; inequality of access to economic opportunity; threats to democratic norms and to human rights; the disruptions caused by technological change such as AI.
We often look to the south, to our American neighbours, for ideas and examples of philanthropic approaches to these shared challenges. But as with so much else today, our neighbours are arguing about the legitimacy and credibility of philanthropy and foundations. Many American foundations are extraordinarily wealthy, whether long-established or newly-created. This puts them in the spotlight of public opinion. And it puts pressure on their performance.
Advisors and allies, such as Phil Buchanan at the Center for Effective Philanthropy, are rising to defend the foundation as a force for good. In a recent blog, Buchanan argued that “given the challenges the country faces right now, what they decide to fund and at what levels — and how they do it — is especially relevant. At a time when so many institutions seem to be failing us, larger, staffed foundations, in particular, have a unique opportunity to use their perches, and their resources, for good. Foundations, perhaps unexpectedly, are more important than ever.”
Critical friends such as David Callahan at Inside Philanthropy have a rejoinder: “the influence of foundations remains enormous, as Buchanan notes. And a big question before these institutions is how to sustain that influence even as the philanthropic order rapidly changes. This sector can do great work and move the needle on important issues, especially with the right leadership. But ultimately, its resources are limited and, inevitably, many of its efforts won’t have the desired impact — or it may even miss key challenges altogether.”
In the United States, a combination of factors is making it difficult to “move the needle”, as Callahan puts it. Political and regional polarization and suspicion of elites, as well as government hostility, are causing many foundations to question their ability to perform. In this circumstance, both Callahan and Buchanan have pointed to the importance of leadership. I agree. Foundation leaders today need specific skills and qualities to be effective that go well beyond the traditional management competencies. These include relationship and collaboration management, calculated risk-taking, good listening, proactive communication, and adaptability. Personal traits such as courage, humility, open-mindedness, pragmatism, curiosity and humour are equally important.
Without such qualities of leadership, it is possible that foundations will be perceived as less relevant to today’s problems. The traditionally opaque and unilateral funding model will not be adequate to address more complex social issues. Without collaborative input from communities and those with direct experience, foundation strategies will not have the impact that they could have.
Here is where I venture to say that Canadian philanthropy is operating in a context that differs from other countries. Our history of institutional philanthropy (foundations) is already long. In the 20th century, much as in the United States, Canada’s wealthy donors created trusts or foundations to build the social infrastructure of their communities (universities, colleges, hospitals, social services etc). But in the present day, many foundation priorities have shifted to more systemic social and environmental challenges. These are the challenges that require the qualities and skills of leadership listed above.
And this is where we may have an advantage. In Canada we have a history of pragmatic collaboration, local action, and collective approaches that facilitates modern philanthropic work. Cross-sectoral strategies are common, especially at local level. Government is not the enemy. Businesses take on social responsibility. Relationships are sought and valued. Foundations know and work with partners in the philanthropic networks that cross the country. And, encouragingly, I see the increasing presence of a generation of foundation leaders, many of whom have roots in community and local action and have the listening skills needed to build relationships and work with others at the same table.
If foundations are going to be relevant in the next decade, they are going to need to spot the right challenges, as David Callahan puts it, and to do their work differently, as Buchanan suggests. This means giving more, giving flexibly, investing deeply in community capacity, sharing decision-making directly with partners and taking on new roles such as convening, advocating and financing through community finance structures. I know that Canadian foundation leaders are stepping up to these roles. Our history of practical cooperation and problem-solving gives us an edge in overcoming the tensions and suspicions that are challenging society. With a dash of creativity and risk-taking, Canadian foundations have the resources and opportunities to pursue solutions for and with their partners in this decade of generational change.
NB. The path to staying relevant is continually improving your practice. One of the best books on improving practice that I have read lately is Please Be Good At Philanthropy by Jen Ford Reedy (accompanied by an excellent workbook). I comment on it in my June blog on Philanthropy’s New Mindset.