Questions to Ask Funder Collaboratives About Work in Turbulent Times

Philanthropies collaborate with one another for many reasons: Learning, increased impact, lessening administrative burden. Responding to a rapidly changing policy environment is an important aspect of joint funder work. Often funder collaboratives help philanthropies to do this.

I have done assignments for funder collaboratives that support racial justice reforms, respond to harsh immigration enforcement, and otherwise support grantees and their funders to manage periods of substantial change. I’ve also worked for philanthropies that have founded and participated in successful funder collaboratives.

Philanthropies considering participation in a funder collaborative during a turbulent period may not have a great deal of time to “kick the tires.”

This post provides questions — based in part on my client work and in part on expert practitioner literature — that might be helpful to philanthropies that are considering joining a collaborative. (I use the term “principal funder” or “funder-partner” in this post to mean philanthropies that use the services of funder collaboratives.)

The underpinnings: Values and mission

Many publications discuss considerations of values and “fit” between principal funders and funder collaboratives, as well as grantmaking practices and governance. I won’t replicate them here.

In summary, however, it’s critical to identify whether the values of a collaborative and its approach to the work are ones that your philanthropy ascribes to. (Pennington 2024; Elmir 2024) These considerations can be substantive (such as a “movement-funder” orientation; specific undertakings to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion; or an agreement to support multi-year grants). It also can be procedural (whether funder participants in the collaborative feel welcomed / included, and whether they get a similar “say” in the collaborative’s deliberations irrespective of their levels of investment).

Principal funder staff might consider not only their philanthropy’s current approach, but also what it could aspire to.

I have interviewed program officers who, for example, believe that their philanthropy should have a greater tolerance for risk – either in the organizations they support, or the issues. For some philanthropies, participation in a funder collaborative is a step in the direction of greater risk tolerance that can be particularly relevant during periods of turbulence.

Objective: Keeping (or becoming) current on fast-changing developments

Keeping principal funders informed is an important feature of funder collaboratives described in the literature. (GEO 2013) Funders benefit from collaborative staffs’ assessments about the state of the field and the political context within which grantees operate; funding gaps that the field experiences; and the nature of specific field organizations. Funders also benefit from the knowledge and experience of expert funder-partner colleagues, and the fact that funders come together periodically to share their knowledge.

Collaborative staff may possibly obtain better and more rapid knowledge of emergent developments than principal funders do. This makes intuitive sense, especially for collaboratives that support a wide range of grantees, although I am not aware of research to support it. Irrespective of this, I have found in my work that having a strong platform for dissemination of information among funders is something that funders have appreciated during turbulent periods. 

Questions to ask funder collaboratives: 

• What formal and informal methods do you use to gather information during periods of emergent or rapid change? How do you communicate the information to funder-partners, and how regularly?
• What mechanisms does the collaborative provide for funder-partners to communicate with and learn from one another? Are they useful and actually used?
• Are there opportunities for funder-partners to hear directly from grantees in-person or remotely, and how do they operate?

Objective: Providing funding support to new CBOs; “rapid response” grantmaking

Funding new / emerging community-based organizations, and “rapid response” grantmaking are two of the ways that funder collaboratives respond to turbulent periods.

In my past six or seven years of measurement and learning projects I’ve interviewed over a dozen recently formed community-based organizations located in places as distinct as Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and Southern California. Every origin story is different. But often a community’s residents have advocated for many months on issues of critical concern until a sparking point – new voter suppression policies, an upswing in immigration raids – creates demands that can’t be met by a volunteer organization. Often with limited background in nonprofits and modest financial support, a group of founders creates a nonprofit to address ongoing community challenges.

Providing support to smaller  / emerging organizations is an often-discussed role for intermediaries including funder collaboratives. (CEP 2024 Webinar; GEO 2013; RWJF 2023) Reasons include the fact that collaboratives may have a better “ear to the ground” about emerging community needs; the fact that larger principal funders’ grant-management systems don’t readily accommodate smaller grants (RWJF 2023); and sometimes because of the amount of capacity building support that early-stage organizations require. (See the discussion below.)

I’ve seen many examples in my practice of grantees that have received grants through a funder collaborative during an early growth phase and then “graduated” to a principal funder of that collaborative as their annual operating budgets increased. (SSIR 2024; RWJF 2023) I have also interviewed “principal funders” that have joined collaboratives in part aspiring to integrate their own smaller grantees into the collaborative’s funding docket.

“Rapid response” or other short turnaround grantmaking (SSIR 2024; RWJF 2023) is a different type of response to emergent situations. In my own research and as affirmed by the literature (Bridgespan 2018; GEO 2013), many principal funders value this funder collaborative role.

Rapid response by an intermediary funder permits principal philanthropies that cannot (or cannot readily) make grants of meaningful size outside of the formal funding calendar to address emergent issues.

Looked at another way, a funder collaborative may mitigate the “emergency race to a funder” situation that organizers and advocates complain of. Often this is described as a scenario where government policy is changed with little warning, and well-established grantees approach their closest funder-partners to support an emergency litigation and / or organizing response. Critics of this state that it can result in services that are not coordinated, and even in service duplication.

Questions to ask funder collaboratives:

• What are the collaborative’s criteria for identifying small / emerging organizations for funding and other support?
• How much (or little) input do philanthropies in the funder collaborative have in the collaborative’s identification of “new” or emerging organizations for grant funding?  
• Is the collaborative set up to provide “rapid response” grants?
• Are rapid response grants available only to core / docket grantees?
• What types of activities does the collaborative fund and not fund through rapid response?
• Does the collaborative offer coordination help to grantees responding to an emergent situation (whether or not the collaborative provides them a rapid response grant)?
• How does the collaborative inform funder-partners about the emergent situation and need for rapid response funding?
• Does the collaborative assist principal funders to coordinate in their own “emergent response” grantmaking outside of the collaborative?

Objective: Providing technical support  / “capacity building” support to grantees

Technical support / capacity building for grantees can mean a variety of things. (TCC Group 2009) Among them are: leadership capacity (including program planning and strategy), management capacity (including HR and program supervision), and technical capacity, especially fundraising. (GEO 2013; TCC Group 2009; Connolly & Lucas 2004)  

The literature reflects that capacity building / technical support is an important funder role (GEO 2013; GEO 2016; Bridgespan 2023; SSIR 2024; Bridgespan 2024; Colorado Trust 2012). Principal funders I’ve interviewed strongly value funder collaboratives’ efforts in these areas.

I have learned through my work that capacity building can be particularly critical during periods of intense or turbulent periods: helping organizations to: ramp up existing offerings or expand into new ones temporarily; develop and deploy effective communications plans; review and upgrade their data-security procedures; or just receive “educated advice” as grantees work through challenges.

One thing that’s been interesting to me as an MLE consultant is that the need for capacity building support can result from (comparatively) “good news.” For example, several years ago one of my nonprofit organization clients received a very large infusion of resources (from foundations and individual donors) in response to major changes in public policy. The organization was deeply challenged in taking on the resources – in part because of capacity shortfalls in mid-level program supervision and “back-office” capacity.

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations says that the most effective TA is contextual (designed to meet the specific needs of a grantee); continuous (longer-term, generally not one-time workshops); and collective (TA coordinated with other funders and designed to build capacity throughout networks). (GEO 2016) When viewed through this lens, funder collaboratives I’ve worked for have gotten good marks.

“Fit” and capacity of the funder are two additional factors I’ve heard discussed more recently. (CEP Webinar 2024) If the grantee’s aim is longer-term power-building but the funder collaborative’s goals are more transactional (achieve a specific time-limited outcome) the capacity conversation may not go well. Similarly, capacity building can falter when a funder collaborative lacks the internal staffing to respond timely to grantees’ needs. (TCC Group 2014)

Questions to ask funder collaboratives:

• What types of capacity building / technical support do you provide to grantees?
• Is the capacity support you provide mostly delivered in a group setting, or are you able to support one-on-one coaching or other services?
• How robust is your own capacity to provide this assistance? How do you adjust your human resources to meet increased grantee need during emergent periods?
• Are non-grantees of a collaborative (including organizations funded separately by the collaborative’s funder-partners) eligible to participate in capacity building programs?
• Is the capacity-building role you play with early-stage grantees different than your role with other organizations in your portfolio? If so, how?
• How do you assess the quality of capacity building services and grantees’ satisfaction with them?

Objective: Helping grantees build peer and funding relationships

Principal funders often value intermediaries for their relationship-building work – a philanthropic role that is regularly cited in the literature. (GEO 2013) I will discuss two here.

Building relationships with other grantees through convening. Practitioner literature reflects that convening supports organizations’ adaptive capacity, helping organizations to more effectively respond to their environments through building partnerships and collaborating with other movement actors. (GEO 2013; Colorado Trust 2012; TCC Group 2009).

Grantees I’ve interviewed have greatly valued support for face-to-face convenings, especially during emergent periods. When many hours of serious collaboration are needed, face-to-face meetings are more efficient and effective than Zoom. (This is especially the case where confidentiality and operational security are important concerns.)

Funding for “live” convenings can help ensure that smaller and grassroots organizations – which may greatly benefit from connections with one another but may not have other avenues to become acquainted — can realistically afford to participate. In-person convening also provides social-emotional support that is invaluable to grantees under great stress.

Support for on-line convening is crucial in emergent periods, with many grantees needing to coordinate more regularly, and sometimes with a wider range of colleagues, than they do when the urgency level is lower. While on-line convening is obviously less costly than in-person, it can be important for grantees to be offered experienced meeting facilitation services. An experienced facilitator – especially one with movement background — lets grantees concentrate on their own meeting objectives instead of playing the dual role of participant and facilitator.

Relationships with philanthropies and individual donors. Funders play a critical role in making connections between grantees and other sources of support. (SSIR 2024; Bridgespan 2023; Bridgespan 2024; PEAK Grantmaking 2023) For newer grantees, funder collaborative support can be the “seal of approval” that reassures other philanthropies that an organization is a solid investment. Other grantees have established relationships with philanthropies or individual donors in adjacent fields after a funder collaborative has made the introduction. Some grantees have said that they have benefitted as much from relationship-development aspects of a funder collaborative – especially during turbulent periods — as from a collaborative’s grants (especially if grants are modest).

Questions to ask funder collaboratives:

• Do you have a specific fund or mechanism for supporting grantee convenings?
• Is the convening fund reserved for core / docket grantees, or can other advocates and organizers apply for this funding? Is it limited to on-line convenings, or are in-person convenings also sometimes supported?
• Do you support meeting facilitation for either in-person or on-line meetings?
• Have grantees expanded their philanthropic or donor relationships with your help? What are some examples of how this works?  

What’s your view?

If you’ve read this far, I’d appreciate your feedback!

• Philanthropy staff, what role do funder collaboratives play in your response to urgent developments? Will you make new or different investments in the coming months?
• Donor collaborative colleagues, how are you preparing for upcoming challenges?

Sources

Bridgespan (2018). Value of Collaboration Research Study: A Literature Review on Funder Collaboration. https://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/b9695634-917b-44a8-bc39-c51fe800ba35/bridgespan-2019-value-of-philanthropic-collaboration-study-literature-review.pdf [

Bridgespan (2023). The Philanthropic Collaborative Landscape. https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/philanthropic-collaborative-landscape

Bridgespan (2024). Measurement, Evaluation, and Learning in Philanthropic Collaboratives. Retrieved from https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/measurement-evaluation-and-learning-in-philanthropic-collaboratives.

Center for Effective Philanthropy (2024). Bridging the Gap: Grantee Perspectives on Intermediary Funders. https://cep.org/report-backpacks/bridging-the-gap-grantee-perspectives-on-intermediary-funders/?section=intro

Center for Effective Philanthropy (2024). Bridging the Gap: Grantee Perspectives on Intermediary Funders (webinar) https://cep.org/event/bridging-the-gap-grantee-perspectives-on-intermediary-funders/

Colorado Trust (2012). Advocacy and Public Policy Grantmaking: Matching Process to Purpose.     http://www.coloradotrust.org/sites/default/files/PDF_version_Research-Advocacy_Public_Policy_Grantmaking-Revised8-15-12.pdf

Connolly, Paul and Carol Lucas, TCC Group (2004). Strengthening Nonprofit Performance: A Funder’s Guide to Capacity Building. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation & Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.

Elmir, Rana (2024). A clarion call: How attacks on US Palestinian solidarity movements undermine our democracy. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy https://ncrp.org/resources/responsive-philanthropy-fall-2024/https-ncrp-org-resources-responsive-philanthropy-fall-2024-how-attacks-on-u-s-palestinian-solidarity-movements-undermine-our-democracy/

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (2013). Many Hands, More Impact: Philanthropy’s Role in Supporting Movements. http://www.geofunders.org/resource-library/all/record/a066000000CtBtuAAF

(positing funder roles of Investor, Broker, Connector, Learner, Influencer)

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (2016). Strengthening Nonprofit Capacity: Core Concepts in Capacity Building. http://docs.geofunders.org/?filename=geo_2016_strengtheningnonprofitcapacity.pdf&utm_source=20160929_Marketing_GEOResources_MembersDNO&utm_medium=email&contactid=0036000001xnja1AAA

Inside Philanthropy, “What Is a Philanthropic Intermediary?” https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/explainers/what-is-a-philanthropic-intermediary.

Nonprofit AF (2023). Intermediary Organizations Are Vital, and Funders Need to Increase Funding Going to Them. https://nonprofitaf.com/2023/11/intermediary-organizations-are-vital-and-funders-need-to-increase-funding-going-to-them.

Patricia Patrizi, M.A., Elizabeth Heid Thompson, B.A., Julia Coffman, M.S., and Tanya Beer, M.A., Evaluation Roundtable (2013). Eyes Wide Open: Learning as Strategy Under Conditions of Complexity and Uncertainty https://evaluationinnovation.org/publication/eyes-wide-open-learning-as-strategy-under-conditions-of-complexity-and-uncertainty-2/

PEAK Grantmaking (2023). An Introduction to Intermediaries. https://www.peakgrantmaking.org/insights/an-introduction-to-intermediaries.

Pennington, Hilary (2024). Unlocking the Transformative Potential of Intermediary Funds. Center for Effective Philanthropy, https://cep.org/blog/unlocking-the-transformative-potential-of-intermediary-funds/

RWJF (2023). Working with Intermediaries Strategically. https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2024/02/working-with-intermediaries-strategically.html

SSIR (2024). How Movement-Accountable Intermediaries Can Change Philanthropy. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/movement-accountable-intermediaries-philanthropy

TCC Group (2009). What Makes an Effective Advocacy Organization: A Framework for Determining Advocacy Capacity. http://www.tccgrp.com/pdfs/EffectiveAdvocacy_final.pdf

TCC Group (2014). Capacity Building 3.0: How to Strengthen the Social Ecosystem. http://www.tccgrp.com/pdfs/11-18-14_TCC_Capacity_3.pdf