Why Big Philanthropy Falls Short at Supporting the Grassroots—and How it Can Do Better

Last summer’s uprisings brought forth a slew of funder pledges to invest more in grassroots racial and climate justice organizations, for good reason: Grassroots groups generate the public energy and urgency behind equity initiatives and climate action, so investing in them could catalyze the systemic and policy changes funders are seeking. The recent cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline—the product of years of activism—is just one example of the power of these movements.

Despite this, not enough funders are effectively investing in grassroots movements. Some are modeling successful strategies for putting financial resources and decision-making in the hands of front-line organizations, but most philanthropic funding portfolios still lack diversification. While it’s easy to attribute this to a funder’s hyperfocus on mission, the real problem lies in structural and cultural factors that make it challenging for big philanthropy to fund grassroots efforts. In short, philanthropy has a systemic problem with funding systemic solutions.

Figuring out this problem is well worth the effort.

Much as a diversified investment portfolio is more resilient and yields better returns over time, diversified philanthropic portfolios are more likely to yield consistently high-impact results. Successful grassroots initiatives operate on the insight that community-driven solutions can be more sustainable and effective, and if supporting them includes promoting strong local models, they can scale. We’ve seen foundations and mega-donors pour money into top-down initiatives that fell flat. Diversifying investments to include grassroots initiatives—the startups of the nonprofit world—may be the true path to better returns for philanthropic funders.

Acknowledging the elephants in the room

Much of what drives underinvestment or ineffective investments in grassroots organizations is the mismatch in size, power and social capital.

Large foundations, much like large corporations, have an infrastructure geared toward dealing with other relatively large organizations. Mega-donors are free to do things entirely on their own terms and through their own networks, and they’re accustomed to that freedom. The result is that even funders that support grassroots movements disproportionately channel money to big national and international nongovernmental organizations. And even field leaders can have equity blind spots.

Philanthropy fed by the Amazon fortune illustrates these points well. The first $800 million tranche of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ $10 billion climate commitment included several grants to climate funds that regrant to grassroots groups and activist organizations led by people of color, but 80% went to a who’s who of big environmental nonprofits and NGOs. Bezos is far from alone in this, and while the tilt is partly because big NGOs do important work that requires scale, it’s also true that their respected brands, sheer scope and fundraising muscle exert a gravitational pull. They offer an easy way to deploy large amounts of money and they sit comfortably in philanthropy’s cultural world.

MacKenzie Scott has taken a far less conventional approach, funneling billions in large, unrestricted grants to “high-impact organizations in categories and communities that have been historically underfunded and overlooked.” It’s an inspiring model, but it relies on an inaccessible process. Scott has been vague about her selection methods, and there is no way for organizations to actively make their case.

If we want to breathe life into new ideas and spread approaches that promote equity, inclusion and long-lasting positive change, we need funders to correct the balance of funding, address access and power dynamics, and help grassroots groups grow sustainably.

Opening the doors to creative solutions

Big funders often don’t hear about the most creative solutions percolating in grassroots and movement organizations because they haven’t made themselves accessible. There are many ways to open the doors, from more effective outreach to broader engagement with intermediaries that have community connections and the capacity to administer small grants. Here are four strategies:

Rethink requests for proposals. Disseminating opportunities more broadly is a good place to start. We often hear about big pledges only after decisions on partnerships and fund distribution have been made. This practice perpetuates the tendency to give to already well-known organizations because grassroots initiatives often lack the time and resources to find aligned funders. Instead of sourcing grantees through funder networks, why not announce opportunities on social media? Posting an RFP on TikTok or Instagram could be revelatory.

While we’re at it, how about rethinking RFP structures? An RFP that lists all the solutions the funder won’t consider (because they’ve already been funded or tried), but that otherwise has few restrictions on proposal parameters or use of funds, could open up a whole new universe. Accepting proposals on a rolling basis would also improve accessibility. Frequent deadlines, rather than one or two funding cycles a year, make it more likely that smaller organizations can apply because they don’t have to be ready at just the right time.

Right-size grants. There’s a need to right-size grants, too. A grassroots organization might not be able to effectively manage a grant that a big funder regularly awards—$150,000, say—but could make real progress with multiple-year, increasing grants, starting with, say, $25,000. Progressive grants can also prevent the common practice among smaller organizations of sacrificing program initiatives to fundraising efforts. A few funders have mastered this—Park Foundation, for example, does a great job of funding grassroots organizations at an optimal level.

Yet many people—inside philanthropy and out—are surprised at how little it can take to spur innovation, especially if funding is sustained over time. We’ve seen this point proved repeatedly by Multiplier projects.

One example is Sane Energy Project, a grassroots organization working to stop fossil fuel pipeline construction and fracking. The project received a $10,000 unrestricted grant—amounting to 10% of its budget at the time. This small sum helped Sane Energy build educational and advocacy tools to power a whole movement. One such tool is the “You Are Here Map,” which visualizes fracking infrastructure connections in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and connects people to local groups fighting the encroachment of gas infrastructure.

Build capacity. Capacity funding is crucial to building grassroots power. That may mean unrestricted funding, which recognizes that small grassroots organizations need flexibility and don’t have the margin to put funds aside for exclusive uses. Or it may mean a program like Packard’s Organizational Effectiveness grant, which invests specifically in infrastructure that supports growth. This can be a transformational approach for high-potential groups that are underinvesting in their own leadership skills and strategic analysis because they feel they can’t prioritize it.

Azul, a grassroots organization that works with the Latinx community to advocate for ocean conservation, illustrates the potential impact. Azul has seen tremendous impact growth following a capacity-building grant of $50,000 over a year. Its leader was paired with a consultant who worked with her to build and implement an organizational development plan, which set Azul up for sustained success through campaigns that reach more people and are more effective.

Some of the most compelling grassroots movements aren’t getting funding because they don’t even have the structure to receive grants. Greater use of fiscal sponsors is an obvious solution, particularly umbrella organizations with a “plus” model, where hosted projects get capacity-building assistance as well as administrative services. That support can accelerate impact if it helps uncover additional funding sources hidden behind closed doors.

Feed a grassroots ecosystem. Another way to boost nascent organizations and movements is to retool the “big bet” model to fund collective action initiatives. Big bets are great for infusing a lot of money into a sector, but they overlook or overwhelm grassroots groups. Funders that infuse capital holistically throughout a sector can put steam behind their mission and lift up community leaders at the same time.

Pooled funder initiatives are one way to do this, but as with big single-funder pledges, they’ll be less effective if they preselect winners in a sector and invest funds only in that subset of organizations. Putting all our eggs in one basket is risky: If that basket fails, we lose everything. Instead, we need to support a wide variety of investments that include grassroots actors to enable multiple pathways to success.

Shifting power to community leaders

Funders that think deeply about how they fund and open doors to broader participation are taking essential first steps. Fully supporting the tide of grassroots activism and innovation also requires adjusting traditional expectations.

Cultivating understanding and respect for the different kinds of assets people bring to the table is essential. Philanthropic funders sometimes fall into the same unconscious biases venture capitalists show. But the point of funding grassroots organizations is to bring more diverse perspectives to problem solving—we shouldn’t expect the profiles of their leaders to match those of big NGO executives.

Grassroots initiatives also may not align with traditional funder metrics. When the goal is significant behavioral and societal shifts, short-term grant cycles and evaluation metrics don’t make sense. That is particularly true of initiatives that are trying to tackle hundreds of years of oppression.

The case for funding grassroots groups is compelling from both a social justice and a results standpoint, and many funders are truly onboard emotionally and intellectually. We must act, however, on the knowledge that the voices of philanthropists and those of grassroots leaders are not equal. That means disrupting traditional grantmaking procedures and shifting power to local leaders. It also means making a long-term commitment to funding portfolios that balance large-scale investments and investments in grassroots leaders who have the potential to drive community solutions to systemic challenges.

Alice Ng is senior advisor, fundraising, at Multiplier, a nonprofit accelerator supporting over 50 projects working on climate resilience, sustainable food systems, social and environmental equity, and other urgent needs.

Featured