Foundations
The Case for Foundations to Do More in Times of Crisis
Spending more today will mean having less for the future, but the current crisis is unprecedented and the financial trade-off is very modest.
Spending more today will mean having less for the future, but the current crisis is unprecedented and the financial trade-off is very modest.
There is no one right answer to the question whether to pay out more during a financial crisis, which depends on balancing the needs of present and future beneficiaries and so varies depending on a funders’ goals and objectives. This is the keystone article for the Up for Debate series on foundations' payouts during big crises. Visit the series page for responses to this essay.
Not only do Black-led nonprofits need lasting and long-term support, but philanthropy needs to wrestle with its past failures to invest in the very communities we claim to be working for.
To realize the deep systemic change that America is demanding, philanthropy must reorganize to build and demonstrate a trust-based culture, invest in community leadership capacity-building, and open up decision-making and information-sharing structures.
Commercial national charities and community foundations should refuse requests by donor-advisors to give to hate groups.
The social sector will flourish through embracing less patriarchal and more collaborative approaches that focus on long-term systemic change.
With pending changes to the federal grantmaking regulations promoting results-oriented accountability, now is a good time for grant makers and grantees to see how using fixed amount awards can promote performance over compliance.
Critics claim that DAFs unduly postpone funds needed by charities, but the vehicle offers many benefits that may outweigh its costs.
Philanthropic dollars can play a unique role in catalyzing the public sector’s transformation toward data-driven leadership and decision-making.
Philanthropy must hire outside the box, write the first check, and take unsolicited applications.