The conversation about the need for transformation in the practices of philanthropy continues across the philanthropy field. We hear about the what and the how of change. But we don’t hear as much about the reasons why change is so difficult. These often have to do with some of the built-in tensions and need for choices in philanthropic approaches.
In my July blog post, Transforming Philanthropy Step by Step, I highlighted the Philanthropy Transformation Initiative from WINGS, the global philanthropy network. Discussing the need for transformation, a group of experienced funders under the umbrella of WINGS contemplate what they call the “paradoxes” of philanthropy. Is philanthropy a solution to society’s challenges, or is it part of the problem? Does philanthropy, by its very nature, reflect the existing systems and structures that have allowed wealth and power to be created, and therefore stand in the way of transforming those systems?
These paradoxes are framed largely around the question of power. The WINGS funders and others suggest that foundations transform themselves by adopting practices that will shift the power, whether through more transparency, more local funding, more partnerships with others or simply more shared decision-making.
But power and what to do with it is not the only dilemma for funders to consider. Of course, money is power. And so, power may be the most prominent dimension of philanthropy. But there are other dimensions such as time and scale that are on the minds of many funders. In considering how best to achieve impact, thoughtful foundation boards and leaders consider choices such as:
These choices are well described in a recent article in Alliance magazine by Anna Hirsch-Holland of the UK-based The Partnering Initiative. She points out that “the transformation agenda” for foundations is more complex and difficult to navigate than implied by WINGS’s set of transformation principles. Much of this turns on how foundations can transform the power imbalance between themselves and grantees or partners.
WINGS and others have called for more long-term, flexible funding to more locally-led actors, and to more actors representing marginalized communities. Hirsh-Holland notes that this can be in tension with a foundation’s ambition for addressing underlying causes rather than symptoms, for greater impact. This can be translated as seeking systems change. And to truly achieve that, key actors in a system need an aligned approach.
As Hirsh-Holland explains (and I quote her at length for those who don’t subscribe to Alliance), “If funder and grantee alike truly want to work together to enable systems change they need to form a trusted partnership: agreeing on shared objectives, with shared accountability for achieving those by combining and integrating complementary resources. This can be at odds with the implicit (or sometime explicit) idea in trust-based funding practices that the grantee knows what is best, and the funder should leave them alone to get on with it. Instead, it requires finding a way to work together that builds trust.”
“In fact, systems change also needs more than a collaborative approach between funder and grantee. It requires multiple stakeholders to be ready to work with others…combining and aligning their resources in pursuit of transformational change. This is why many funders are also recognising their important role in convening and encouraging collaboration between their grantee partners and other key stakeholders.” But, as Hirsh-Holland points out, “this can be a delicate matter as donor-driven collaboration can be another way in which funders embed an unhealthy power dynamic with and among their grantees.”
She also draws attention to the tension between the “trust-based approach” that calls for minimal reporting requirements and the need for funders and partners to know what progress is being made towards systems change or to collect evidence that an approach is working. She suggests that many foundations are finding ways around this tension by “focussing on learning rather than proof and seeking to make this a collaborative effort with their partners”. But the demand for evidence can prevent funders from achieving their ambition to shift power to community organizations with limited capacity for reporting and evidence collection.
One more tension identified by Hirsh-Holland is that between the drive to partner more locally and the trend towards “big-bet, top down philanthropy”, particularly in the area of climate change work. If foundations are partnering with private investor partners to catalyze more capital for the energy transition, profit can supersede justice goals. To deal with this tension, foundations can be those actors that “build critical bridges between the profit-driven motivations of the private sector, the social goals of governments, and the justice goals of civil society actors.”
Hirsh-Holland provides a nuanced way to think through at least some of the tensions inherent in an attempt to juggle more trust-based or more locally-driven and equitable approaches with the ambition of achieving greater impact over time. She suggests her own questions to apply, along with the tips and ideas from WINGS:
Tension is often associated with stress. But tension is not inherently bad. It simply forces more concentration. Philanthropy with impact is not for the faint-hearted. Nor can it be part-time. It requires much thought and care. Luckily, funders such as the group behind the Philanthropy Transformation Initiative and the Partnering Initiative are sharing the questions and ideas that will help along the path to making good philanthropic choices.
It’s difficult, and somewhat unfair, to generalize about foundation philanthropy. If I have learned anything after two decades of working with foundations, it’s that generalizations quickly find their contradictions. There are great differences among foundations in motivation, strategies and governance.
That said, there is reason to focus on one big generalization right now. It’s about the shared environment in which philanthropies operate. No matter its mission, or target population, or size, or beliefs, a philanthropic foundation is profoundly affected by the urgency of the many systemic global crises we now face – what some are calling a “polycrisis”. In Canada, these overlapping systemic crises are exemplified by our summer of wildfires and floods, along with longer-term concerns about the impact of climate change on the North, on biodiversity, on agriculture and water. We must figure out how to get to greater sustainability without leaving people behind and while trying to put equity and access to opportunity first. We are also still dealing with the after-effects of the pandemic, including long-term health impacts and economic disruptions. The world certainly feels unstable.
In a world of change, philanthropy is hearing a call for even greater change, even for transformation, within philanthropy itself. A new initiative from WINGS, the global philanthropy network, sets out to challenge the field to respond more boldly to the polycrisis. The Philanthropy Transformation Initiative (PTI) calls on foundations to transform their own practices, with the aim of becoming more effective organizations, better able to rise to what it describes as the existential threat that humanity faces.
Transformation is a daunting word. But the group of philanthropy networks, advisors, academics and funders assembled by WINGS for the PTI argues that “the current polycrisis presents a radically new situation – one that will force us all to rethink the short, middle, and long-term view of our existence on this planet. This requires us to make radical changes to the ways in which we think about philanthropy (and many other areas of our lives and societies). As practitioners embodying the love of humanity we cannot ignore existential threats, even if doing so may mean significant changes to what we do and how we do it in the short-term.”
But what can we do? The PTI has put together a report that provides a handbook of sorts for foundations trying to come to grips with what must be done. Understanding that transformation is too big an idea without more definition, the PTI has tried to break it down into three messages and ten principles. The three messages are straightforward:
These messages are the PTI answer to what it captures as the three paradoxes of philanthropy:
These paradoxes are often cited by the more radical critics of institutional philanthropy to justify their call for philanthropy to spend down and/or be dismantled. But the PTI suggests that they can be used as a catalyst for positive change, “with philanthropy actors understanding how they can adopt models and methods that maximise their potential as a force for positive social change whilst minimising the capacity to cause unintended harms.”
This entails a change in mindset, which is where the three messages come in. The PTI suggests a mindset shift from being achievers to being enablers of others to contribute to social change; from separating operations and endowments from values and wealth generation, to aligning them; from thinking more about the short-term and the local to thinking about the longer-term and the global.
Yes, much easier described than done. So, to break it down into more do-able steps to transformation, the PTI names ten principles to guide practice:
For each principle, the 87-page PTI report offers a so-called “catalogue of resources, recommendations, and insights”. It discusses specifics, recommends practices, and lists resources and tools. For instance, under the first principle on transparency and accountability, the report defines the terms, discusses why funders should pay attention, suggests how to get started and how to go beyond, lists potential obstacles and possible solutions, and then adds a digitally-linked list of resources on the topic, sourced from around the world. In addition, WINGS has produced a separate and more detailed guide to transparency and accountability which I referenced in my June 2023 blog. What I appreciate about this guide is that it’s not all or nothing. Canadian foundation boards, leaders, and staff can choose one or more steps. Transformation isn’t immediate or all at once. The idea is to start on the steps, using this as a route map of sorts. To encourage and inspire, WINGS has created an opportunity for storytelling and case studies through the PTI website. One of the ambitious WINGS goals for the PTI is to create a global framework for philanthropy, to which funders can add evidence of changing practice under one or more of the ten principles. The case studies today come from Indonesia, Egypt, Brazil, Colombia, China, the UK, Australia and China. Will there be a Canadian foundation case study listed there soon?